10 ms·

Telegram's getting ads

81 points by maydemir 6y ago

fsflover 6y ago
This is why decentralization is the future. Any sufficiently popular walled garden will have such problem (I'm looking at you Signal). Consider using Matrix instead.
- bilal4hmed 6y ago
  I like Matrix, but when it comes to ease of use and onboarding Signal is easier for the general audience.
  - rglullis 6y ago
    Is this a counter-argument, or plain pontification? OP clearly states that there is a fundamental issue with any centralized solution (i.e, the moment that it becomes too big, it will succumb to the interests of its owners) and you respond by saying "well, Signal is easier for the general audience"? It might be easier, so what? Apple's products are supposedly more privacy-oriented than the Facebook's/Google's. So what? The idea is that we should be rooting/encouraging others to put decentralization and freedom as a top-priority choice, not to keep excusing ourselves into adopting solutions that are bound to become another dominant walled garden. If you want to argue for Matrix vs XMPP, or XMPP vs SIP or any other decentralized protocol, by all means go ahead. Just please don't come with "I like Matrix, but here is a completely lazy cop-out that I will use to justify to not fight the good fight"
    - bilal4hmed 6y ago
      Its not a lazy cop out. There is a reason why Telegram, WhatsApp, iMessage have more users - they are simple to use for an audience that is not tech savvy. Matrix has a long way to go before getting people to join is "easy". Theyve done great work over this year to get that done, but its far from perfect. Fight the good fight but dont forget what makes an app attract users. Even now on matrix, when you sign up, matrix.org is the default server. If majority go about signing up without changing that, you end up with a centralized service.
      - rglullis 6y ago
        I've got a good part of my family who is not tech savvy on matrix (not their server, but actual accounts on communick.com homeserver), nothing that a 10 minute walk-through didn't solve. It on us the tech savvy to identify these issues, educate and help them overcome them, and ideally contribute for these issues to be solved in the first place. This gives us progress and freedom. Saying "matrix is hard/incomplete, let's just stick in the golden cage" gives us convenience, but no progress.
        asutekku 6y ago
        10 min walkthrough/registration process versus a <1 min registration. Think whatever of it but people appreciate convenience over everything.
        rglullis 6y ago
        "Look, mom/dad/wife/brother/friends, I know that WhatsApp is easier and everyone else is using it and it you already know it and it is super convenient. But I don't want to use it anymore for a bunch of different reasons. If you want to talk to me, I can help you get set up on this app and we can talk. I know it sounds like a pain in the ass, but I am willing to help you with whatever issue you have. Just please don't ask me to sacrifice my freedom for your convenience." 100% conversion rate. Stop with excuses and Just. Ask. Them. In fact even if I have no paying customers at all for communick I wouldn't still shut it down just so my friends and family can continue using it.
        dividedbyzero 6y ago
        100% conversion rate with those you can apply sufficient pressure on, perhaps. Who'd want to lose contact with a son, brother, father over something like that? But it's a hassle, even if you don't see it that way. Over the years I myself have been converted to Signal, Telegram (encrypted chats), Threema, some kind of encrypted IRC and OTR on at least two other messengers, Google Wave, Google Talk, Viber, ... can't remember them all. I have no idea anymore what person prefers which app and since most of those people weren't the very best of friends, contact to almost all of them has effectively ceased (in part because those specific people don't often start conversations themselves), which is a pity, but it's simply really bothersome to cater to everyone's preferences, and I absolutely can't and won't switch to $other_app fully myself, because I really value being able to talk to all my acquaintances and friends and relatives and being able to stay in touch with new ones easily and frictionlessly, and pretty much everyone is on Whatsapp, and all I need is a phone number. If some people categorically don't value other people who don't use their preferred app, that totally weirds me out. Their choice, but not one I'm willing to make, especially since that notion of freedom I gain feels like a very, very abstract kind of freedom in a world where billions use Whatsapp for next to anything and all sorts of devices, apps and websites from all sorts of brands and sources phone home lots and lots of data, which also means eschewing Whatsapp doesn't matter a thing unless I make dozens of other painfull choices like opting out of all mainstream social media, complex privacy-centric browser setups that need constant attention to not fall behind, no mainstream phone (possibly no smartphone at all), no smart devices at all, Linux exclusively, etc. pp., otherwise I'll just leak data like a sieve elsewhere. Given that I gain what feels like very little, life just feels too short for this.
    - wruza 6y ago
      >It might be easier, so what? If it is not easier/equal they won’t give it a go. Just that. >The idea is that we should be rooting/encouraging others to put decentralization and freedom as a top-priority choice, not to keep excusing ourselves into adopting solutions that are bound to become another dominant walled garden. Words of a freedom and privacy specialist. General folks are not specializing in it, more than a half (if only) cannot even connect it with their benefit. You say that like some economist could say “use less gas to keep prices down and nature alive”. But it doesn’t work, because “screw that nonsense, I have to drive my kids and groceries home”. If you’re in a quarantined country right now, just look around and see how many efforts the inconvenience requires to be sustained. This is the amount of force you have to apply, when doing it your “so what” way. Make IM app easy, friendly and full of features and cat pics and only then care for high matters. Literally all Real Security First apps are barely usable by a regular person in terms of everything.
  - hertzrat 6y ago
    Is matrix as private as signal? How do you go about finding a good server? How do you know if you picked a good one? Which app do you use? Matrix would be more popular if the getting started flow was more clear on these sorts of questions. The decentralization is a major benefit, but some sort of “pick these if you don’t know what’s going on” flow would get peoples foot in the door; then a user could change things up later when they got their footing (add a pop up every 6 months reminding users that they can use different apps or servers, etc)
  - anoncake 6y ago
    If ease of use and onboarding is the criterium, WhatsApp wins. Promoting any walled garden is short-sighted.
- loceng 6y ago
  Arguably providing everyone the means to pay for what individuals need to live a healthy, thriving life, is what's necessary - so they can cover the costs of these services without the need for ads to cover those costs. The ad industrial complex was a way to fast track processes, however it doesn't account for the externalized costs of manipulative advertising on society - lower quality, addictive products-services having a higher profit margin and therefore a higher budget for marketing/advertising as part of sustaining the complex. Decentralization therefore isn't a necessity except as a failsafe against potential bad actors, however data and network portability is necessary law/policy to be in place to counter actions of bad actors who use this current lack of easy mobility as a network defense mechanism.
  - dfxm12 6y ago
    so they can cover the costs of these services without the need for ads to cover those costs. I don't think that once you pay for a service, ads and selling user data simply go away. In general, companies don't exist to just cover their costs, they exist to make as much money as they can. If they can make money by showing you ads or sell your data, they will.
    - loceng 6y ago
      Yes, but if you're providing people enough to at least cover the costs of necessary services (perhaps even providing 10%+ above costs to allow budget for R&D or profit) then a competitor will come along who's against ads (for reasons: interruptive/intrusive, manipulative, etc) then there at least is a choice now possible - the ability to compete with ad-only funded options. Some people, maybe the majority of people, will be fine with using ad-only supported systems - exchanging their time, attention, and being manipulated - so then they have more of their UBI to spend elsewhere. The important point is the fluidity it allows within the system, to allow competitors to exist who don't need to depend on ads; and then you'll have the whole ad industrial complex + every other company that depends on influencing/manipulating people with ads to sustain their sales trying to counter how much UBI get so these systems can't be maintained without ads, keeping non-manipulative competition down at a disadvantage and unable to compete adequately.
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  Someone, somewhere, still has to pay for your Matrix instance. Please consider chipping in a few dollars to whoever hosts it, both for their direct costs and their time.
bilal4hmed 6y ago
While Im not a fan of telegrams encryption, the title is a bit misleading. It makes it seem as if ALL of telegram is getting ads. if you go to the founders post https://t.me/durov/142 https://t.me/durov/142 It clearly says ads will be for the 1:many public community channels and not the private 1:1 and group chats. Other ways of funding will be premium services for businesses and premium stickers. Sounds reasonable to me
- hertzrat 6y ago
  What do you dislike about telegrams encryption? The only private messaging app Im really familiar with signal
  - bilal4hmed 6y ago
    The reason primarily is that they have rolled their own crypto, which based on a lot of reading and comments from other experts suggests is the wrong thing to do. To this end I havent seen a good explanation from Telegram as to why they have taken this route given there are so many proven & battle tested methods and algorithms. "We havent been hacked yet" doesnt seem good enough for me. 1:1 messages aren't e2e by default and group messages dont support e2e. For these reasons about encryption I dont like it but their UI/UX is the absolute best.
    - erikbye 6y ago
      > The reason primarily is that they have rolled their own crypto, which based on a lot of reading and comments from other experts suggests is the wrong thing to do Someone has to roll crypto. Did Signal roll their own?
      - thekyle 6y ago
        I believe Signal did create their own crypto (which is also used now by apps like WhatsApp). The difference is that Signal's crypto was created by a trained cryptographer and seems to be generally respected in the cryptography community while Telegrams is not.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
____________g 6y ago
I don't understand how Telegram has managed to stay free for 8 (?) years until now. Was there ever a catch? Since the start it has continuously improved to become a feature-packed product that's easy to use, with a pleasant UI.
- bilal4hmed 6y ago
  The founder had been covering the costs
  - otachack 6y ago
    Yep. Summarized, the founder found the Russian equivalent of Facebook, sold it, and started + sustained Telegram with the proceeds.
  - cblconfederate 6y ago
    Which shows the extent to which the mainstream internet is overrun with greed
    - tmp538394722 6y ago
      I mean... He tried to make a bazillion dollars with gram crypto currency, but it failed.
- karlmcguire 6y ago
  The most interesting thing about Telegram to me is the development team: about 10 very good engineers who travel with Pavel and work from hotels.
utf_8x 6y ago
I'd recommend Signal[0] as an alternative. It's fully Open-Source (including the backend) and their crypto is public and independently verified[1][2][3]... [0] https://signal.org/en/ https://signal.org/en/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software)#Encryption_protocols https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software)#Encryption_p... [2] https://threatpost.com/signal-audit-reveals-protocol-cryptographically-sound/121892/ https://threatpost.com/signal-audit-reveals-protocol-cryptog... [3] https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/1013.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/1013.pdf [PDF]
- otachack 6y ago
  Signal is great and I believe it does have better crypto. But the UI is severely lacking along with feature set. Telegram feels like it's adding something new every few months, though the documentation over the features is poor since it's mostly through announcements. It's also a lot more customizable. I ultimately settled on Telegram because it was a good balance of feature-rich and crypto (when you use it) That being said, it was hard enough to get a small group of friends to transition to Telegram. Signal would be much harder due to not having so many niceties. I wish both to continue competing against each other, though. It's great to have choices that aren't owned by the big corporations.
  - utf_8x 6y ago
    I agree, the UI is very lacking and the UX could be better but there are VERY frequent updates and new features seem to be added regularly...
  - hertzrat 6y ago
    I never found signal lacking in any way, except that occasionally push notifications don’t get through. When people say signal is lacking in features, what do they mean? Simplicity is appealing too
    - jlelse 6y ago
      They (at least it's me) are possibly meaning the excellent multi-device use. I can easilly use Telegram on like 10 different devices, all chats are in sync.
grishka 6y ago
As someone who knew Durov personally, I'd say that it's very unlikely that the UX will be ruined by ads, and even more unlikely that users will be manipulated and/or tracked in any way. If there's one thing he does well it's respecting his users. He knows what "we're earning enough to cover our expenses" means. The company is privately owned so no one will be pushing him into anything either. Many popular Telegram channels already have ads in them, posted by their creators. My understanding is that Telegram will be taking control of this by acting as an intermediary, taking a cut and possibly deciding what goes through. Thinking of it, it makes sense, and doesn't alter the UX at all for the average user.
- balozi 6y ago
  Come on, ALL UX is ruined by addition of ads. I bet there is not a single user of any app anywhere ever that can claim that their UX was bettered by ads. Also, users WILL be have to manipulated and/or tracked for the purpose of monetization via ads. By now everyone is well acquainted with these monetization techniques, so no point in pretending otherwise.
  - tomcam 6y ago
    Disagree. I like musical instruments. I don’t mind ads for guitar companies. I like embedded systems. I love seeing ads for new esp32 variants or low cost e-ink screens. Also I never object to women’s swimsuit ads. Just sayin’.
    - amelius 6y ago
      Still, ads will distract you in moments that you don't want to be distracted. If you like guitars, you can visit a good, large online guitar store, say once a week, and you will always be up to date. Same for swimsuits.
      - tomcam 6y ago
        Thanks for telling me how my attention span works. Your insights are lacking but at least you make up for it by being condescending.
dawnerd 6y ago
Why did the article have to start with saying Telegram was for drug dealers?
- sm4rk0 6y ago
  If you don't like this post, here's the first one with original source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25515569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25515569
sm4rk0 6y ago
Not defending Telegram, but I stopped reading after this part: "and longtime drug-dealer haven".
- sm4rk0 6y ago
  The first HN post with the original source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25515569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25515569
MisterBiggs 6y ago
After TON failed [0] I don't see many other avenues for breaking even with 500 million monthly active users. [1] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23156224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23156224 [1] https://t.me/durov/142 https://t.me/durov/142
soupson 6y ago
From the founder's statement about making telegram sustainable: > We are not going to sell the company like the founders of Whatsapp. The world needs Telegram to stay independent as a place where users are respected and high-quality service is ensured. They're on the wrong track. Ads do not make a company independent. They make them dependent on those advertisers. If you're still using Telegram, it's long past time to move on to Signal.
- AlfeG 6y ago
  But ads is already there. Every channel at some point start to show Your ads. As far I understand telegram will take a bite of those ads and provide to channel owners some platform.
  - soupson 6y ago
    I've never seen any ads on Mastodon.
cft 6y ago
This sounds like a hit piece, ordered by competitors. "longtime drug-dealer haven"- most of my work colleagues use telegram, and I see friends from my contact list joining Telegram from all over the world. I started using it when Putin exiled the founder from Russia, and tried to ban its IP space for refusal to hand over the private keys to FSB. He never had any issues with WhatApp by the way. And I am an engineer, not a drug dealer. Private and group conversations (things that compete with WhatsApp) aren't getting ads.
cosmiccatnap 6y ago
It seems like for a decade now a product appears that offers reasonable security promises or reasonable feature promises. In either case it's a ticking clock before it can no longer be self sustained and ads creep in one by one. I must have went through 10 different applications this way, applications that were superior at a previous point in their history.
AlexTrask 6y ago
Someone at gizmondo don't like Telegram,the Durov original message says the oposite: > 5. All parts of Telegram devoted to messaging will remain ad-free. We think that displaying ads in private 1-to-1 chats or group chats is a bad idea. Communication between people should be free of advertising of any sort. Original Source: https://t.me/durov/142 https://t.me/durov/142

81 points by maydemir 6y ago

This is why decentralization is the future. Any sufficiently popular walled garden will have such problem (I'm looking at you Signal). Consider using Matrix instead.

bilal4hmed 6y ago
I like Matrix, but when it comes to ease of use and onboarding Signal is easier for the general audience.
- rglullis 6y ago
  Is this a counter-argument, or plain pontification? OP clearly states that there is a fundamental issue with any centralized solution (i.e, the moment that it becomes too big, it will succumb to the interests of its owners) and you respond by saying "well, Signal is easier for the general audience"? It might be easier, so what? Apple's products are supposedly more privacy-oriented than the Facebook's/Google's. So what? The idea is that we should be rooting/encouraging others to put decentralization and freedom as a top-priority choice, not to keep excusing ourselves into adopting solutions that are bound to become another dominant walled garden. If you want to argue for Matrix vs XMPP, or XMPP vs SIP or any other decentralized protocol, by all means go ahead. Just please don't come with "I like Matrix, but here is a completely lazy cop-out that I will use to justify to not fight the good fight"
  - bilal4hmed 6y ago
    Its not a lazy cop out. There is a reason why Telegram, WhatsApp, iMessage have more users - they are simple to use for an audience that is not tech savvy. Matrix has a long way to go before getting people to join is "easy". Theyve done great work over this year to get that done, but its far from perfect. Fight the good fight but dont forget what makes an app attract users. Even now on matrix, when you sign up, matrix.org is the default server. If majority go about signing up without changing that, you end up with a centralized service.
    - rglullis 6y ago
      I've got a good part of my family who is not tech savvy on matrix (not their server, but actual accounts on communick.com homeserver), nothing that a 10 minute walk-through didn't solve. It on us the tech savvy to identify these issues, educate and help them overcome them, and ideally contribute for these issues to be solved in the first place. This gives us progress and freedom. Saying "matrix is hard/incomplete, let's just stick in the golden cage" gives us convenience, but no progress.
      - asutekku 6y ago
        10 min walkthrough/registration process versus a <1 min registration. Think whatever of it but people appreciate convenience over everything.
        rglullis 6y ago
        "Look, mom/dad/wife/brother/friends, I know that WhatsApp is easier and everyone else is using it and it you already know it and it is super convenient. But I don't want to use it anymore for a bunch of different reasons. If you want to talk to me, I can help you get set up on this app and we can talk. I know it sounds like a pain in the ass, but I am willing to help you with whatever issue you have. Just please don't ask me to sacrifice my freedom for your convenience." 100% conversion rate. Stop with excuses and Just. Ask. Them. In fact even if I have no paying customers at all for communick I wouldn't still shut it down just so my friends and family can continue using it.
        dividedbyzero 6y ago
        100% conversion rate with those you can apply sufficient pressure on, perhaps. Who'd want to lose contact with a son, brother, father over something like that? But it's a hassle, even if you don't see it that way. Over the years I myself have been converted to Signal, Telegram (encrypted chats), Threema, some kind of encrypted IRC and OTR on at least two other messengers, Google Wave, Google Talk, Viber, ... can't remember them all. I have no idea anymore what person prefers which app and since most of those people weren't the very best of friends, contact to almost all of them has effectively ceased (in part because those specific people don't often start conversations themselves), which is a pity, but it's simply really bothersome to cater to everyone's preferences, and I absolutely can't and won't switch to $other_app fully myself, because I really value being able to talk to all my acquaintances and friends and relatives and being able to stay in touch with new ones easily and frictionlessly, and pretty much everyone is on Whatsapp, and all I need is a phone number. If some people categorically don't value other people who don't use their preferred app, that totally weirds me out. Their choice, but not one I'm willing to make, especially since that notion of freedom I gain feels like a very, very abstract kind of freedom in a world where billions use Whatsapp for next to anything and all sorts of devices, apps and websites from all sorts of brands and sources phone home lots and lots of data, which also means eschewing Whatsapp doesn't matter a thing unless I make dozens of other painfull choices like opting out of all mainstream social media, complex privacy-centric browser setups that need constant attention to not fall behind, no mainstream phone (possibly no smartphone at all), no smart devices at all, Linux exclusively, etc. pp., otherwise I'll just leak data like a sieve elsewhere. Given that I gain what feels like very little, life just feels too short for this.
  - wruza 6y ago
    >It might be easier, so what? If it is not easier/equal they won’t give it a go. Just that. >The idea is that we should be rooting/encouraging others to put decentralization and freedom as a top-priority choice, not to keep excusing ourselves into adopting solutions that are bound to become another dominant walled garden. Words of a freedom and privacy specialist. General folks are not specializing in it, more than a half (if only) cannot even connect it with their benefit. You say that like some economist could say “use less gas to keep prices down and nature alive”. But it doesn’t work, because “screw that nonsense, I have to drive my kids and groceries home”. If you’re in a quarantined country right now, just look around and see how many efforts the inconvenience requires to be sustained. This is the amount of force you have to apply, when doing it your “so what” way. Make IM app easy, friendly and full of features and cat pics and only then care for high matters. Literally all Real Security First apps are barely usable by a regular person in terms of everything.
- hertzrat 6y ago
  Is matrix as private as signal? How do you go about finding a good server? How do you know if you picked a good one? Which app do you use? Matrix would be more popular if the getting started flow was more clear on these sorts of questions. The decentralization is a major benefit, but some sort of “pick these if you don’t know what’s going on” flow would get peoples foot in the door; then a user could change things up later when they got their footing (add a pop up every 6 months reminding users that they can use different apps or servers, etc)
- anoncake 6y ago
  If ease of use and onboarding is the criterium, WhatsApp wins. Promoting any walled garden is short-sighted.
loceng 6y ago
Arguably providing everyone the means to pay for what individuals need to live a healthy, thriving life, is what's necessary - so they can cover the costs of these services without the need for ads to cover those costs. The ad industrial complex was a way to fast track processes, however it doesn't account for the externalized costs of manipulative advertising on society - lower quality, addictive products-services having a higher profit margin and therefore a higher budget for marketing/advertising as part of sustaining the complex. Decentralization therefore isn't a necessity except as a failsafe against potential bad actors, however data and network portability is necessary law/policy to be in place to counter actions of bad actors who use this current lack of easy mobility as a network defense mechanism.
- dfxm12 6y ago
  so they can cover the costs of these services without the need for ads to cover those costs. I don't think that once you pay for a service, ads and selling user data simply go away. In general, companies don't exist to just cover their costs, they exist to make as much money as they can. If they can make money by showing you ads or sell your data, they will.
  - loceng 6y ago
    Yes, but if you're providing people enough to at least cover the costs of necessary services (perhaps even providing 10%+ above costs to allow budget for R&D or profit) then a competitor will come along who's against ads (for reasons: interruptive/intrusive, manipulative, etc) then there at least is a choice now possible - the ability to compete with ad-only funded options. Some people, maybe the majority of people, will be fine with using ad-only supported systems - exchanging their time, attention, and being manipulated - so then they have more of their UBI to spend elsewhere. The important point is the fluidity it allows within the system, to allow competitors to exist who don't need to depend on ads; and then you'll have the whole ad industrial complex + every other company that depends on influencing/manipulating people with ads to sustain their sales trying to counter how much UBI get so these systems can't be maintained without ads, keeping non-manipulative competition down at a disadvantage and unable to compete adequately.
vorpalhex 6y ago
Someone, somewhere, still has to pay for your Matrix instance. Please consider chipping in a few dollars to whoever hosts it, both for their direct costs and their time.

bilal4hmed 6y ago

While Im not a fan of telegrams encryption, the title is a bit misleading. It makes it seem as if ALL of telegram is getting ads. if you go to the founders post https://t.me/durov/142 https://t.me/durov/142 It clearly says ads will be for the 1:many public community channels and not the private 1:1 and group chats. Other ways of funding will be premium services for businesses and premium stickers. Sounds reasonable to me

hertzrat 6y ago
What do you dislike about telegrams encryption? The only private messaging app Im really familiar with signal
- bilal4hmed 6y ago
  The reason primarily is that they have rolled their own crypto, which based on a lot of reading and comments from other experts suggests is the wrong thing to do. To this end I havent seen a good explanation from Telegram as to why they have taken this route given there are so many proven & battle tested methods and algorithms. "We havent been hacked yet" doesnt seem good enough for me. 1:1 messages aren't e2e by default and group messages dont support e2e. For these reasons about encryption I dont like it but their UI/UX is the absolute best.
  - erikbye 6y ago
    > The reason primarily is that they have rolled their own crypto, which based on a lot of reading and comments from other experts suggests is the wrong thing to do Someone has to roll crypto. Did Signal roll their own?
    - thekyle 6y ago
      I believe Signal did create their own crypto (which is also used now by apps like WhatsApp). The difference is that Signal's crypto was created by a trained cryptographer and seems to be generally respected in the cryptography community while Telegrams is not.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

____________g 6y ago

I don't understand how Telegram has managed to stay free for 8 (?) years until now. Was there ever a catch? Since the start it has continuously improved to become a feature-packed product that's easy to use, with a pleasant UI.

bilal4hmed 6y ago
The founder had been covering the costs
- otachack 6y ago
  Yep. Summarized, the founder found the Russian equivalent of Facebook, sold it, and started + sustained Telegram with the proceeds.
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  Which shows the extent to which the mainstream internet is overrun with greed
  - tmp538394722 6y ago
    I mean... He tried to make a bazillion dollars with gram crypto currency, but it failed.
karlmcguire 6y ago
The most interesting thing about Telegram to me is the development team: about 10 very good engineers who travel with Pavel and work from hotels.

utf_8x 6y ago

I'd recommend Signal[0] as an alternative. It's fully Open-Source (including the backend) and their crypto is public and independently verified[1][2][3]... [0] https://signal.org/en/ https://signal.org/en/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software)#Encryption_protocols https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software)#Encryption_p... [2] https://threatpost.com/signal-audit-reveals-protocol-cryptographically-sound/121892/ https://threatpost.com/signal-audit-reveals-protocol-cryptog... [3] https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/1013.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/1013.pdf [PDF]

otachack 6y ago
Signal is great and I believe it does have better crypto. But the UI is severely lacking along with feature set. Telegram feels like it's adding something new every few months, though the documentation over the features is poor since it's mostly through announcements. It's also a lot more customizable. I ultimately settled on Telegram because it was a good balance of feature-rich and crypto (when you use it) That being said, it was hard enough to get a small group of friends to transition to Telegram. Signal would be much harder due to not having so many niceties. I wish both to continue competing against each other, though. It's great to have choices that aren't owned by the big corporations.
- utf_8x 6y ago
  I agree, the UI is very lacking and the UX could be better but there are VERY frequent updates and new features seem to be added regularly...
- hertzrat 6y ago
  I never found signal lacking in any way, except that occasionally push notifications don’t get through. When people say signal is lacking in features, what do they mean? Simplicity is appealing too
  - jlelse 6y ago
    They (at least it's me) are possibly meaning the excellent multi-device use. I can easilly use Telegram on like 10 different devices, all chats are in sync.

grishka 6y ago

As someone who knew Durov personally, I'd say that it's very unlikely that the UX will be ruined by ads, and even more unlikely that users will be manipulated and/or tracked in any way. If there's one thing he does well it's respecting his users. He knows what "we're earning enough to cover our expenses" means. The company is privately owned so no one will be pushing him into anything either. Many popular Telegram channels already have ads in them, posted by their creators. My understanding is that Telegram will be taking control of this by acting as an intermediary, taking a cut and possibly deciding what goes through. Thinking of it, it makes sense, and doesn't alter the UX at all for the average user.

balozi 6y ago
Come on, ALL UX is ruined by addition of ads. I bet there is not a single user of any app anywhere ever that can claim that their UX was bettered by ads. Also, users WILL be have to manipulated and/or tracked for the purpose of monetization via ads. By now everyone is well acquainted with these monetization techniques, so no point in pretending otherwise.
- tomcam 6y ago
  Disagree. I like musical instruments. I don’t mind ads for guitar companies. I like embedded systems. I love seeing ads for new esp32 variants or low cost e-ink screens. Also I never object to women’s swimsuit ads. Just sayin’.
  - amelius 6y ago
    Still, ads will distract you in moments that you don't want to be distracted. If you like guitars, you can visit a good, large online guitar store, say once a week, and you will always be up to date. Same for swimsuits.
    - tomcam 6y ago
      Thanks for telling me how my attention span works. Your insights are lacking but at least you make up for it by being condescending.

dawnerd 6y ago

Why did the article have to start with saying Telegram was for drug dealers?

sm4rk0 6y ago
If you don't like this post, here's the first one with original source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25515569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25515569

sm4rk0 6y ago

Not defending Telegram, but I stopped reading after this part: "and longtime drug-dealer haven".

sm4rk0 6y ago
The first HN post with the original source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25515569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25515569

MisterBiggs 6y ago

After TON failed [0] I don't see many other avenues for breaking even with 500 million monthly active users. [1] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23156224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23156224 [1] https://t.me/durov/142 https://t.me/durov/142

soupson 6y ago

From the founder's statement about making telegram sustainable: > We are not going to sell the company like the founders of Whatsapp. The world needs Telegram to stay independent as a place where users are respected and high-quality service is ensured. They're on the wrong track. Ads do not make a company independent. They make them dependent on those advertisers. If you're still using Telegram, it's long past time to move on to Signal.

AlfeG 6y ago
But ads is already there. Every channel at some point start to show Your ads. As far I understand telegram will take a bite of those ads and provide to channel owners some platform.
- soupson 6y ago
  I've never seen any ads on Mastodon.

cft 6y ago

This sounds like a hit piece, ordered by competitors. "longtime drug-dealer haven"- most of my work colleagues use telegram, and I see friends from my contact list joining Telegram from all over the world. I started using it when Putin exiled the founder from Russia, and tried to ban its IP space for refusal to hand over the private keys to FSB. He never had any issues with WhatApp by the way. And I am an engineer, not a drug dealer. Private and group conversations (things that compete with WhatsApp) aren't getting ads.

cosmiccatnap 6y ago

It seems like for a decade now a product appears that offers reasonable security promises or reasonable feature promises. In either case it's a ticking clock before it can no longer be self sustained and ads creep in one by one. I must have went through 10 different applications this way, applications that were superior at a previous point in their history.

AlexTrask 6y ago

Someone at gizmondo don't like Telegram,the Durov original message says the oposite: > 5. All parts of Telegram devoted to messaging will remain ad-free. We think that displaying ads in private 1-to-1 chats or group chats is a bad idea. Communication between people should be free of advertising of any sort. Original Source: https://t.me/durov/142 https://t.me/durov/142