8 ms·

I wish my buddies who are hung up on Signal's E2E, and rightfully so, would at least try Telegram to see what they are missing. An E2E-default version of Telegr

I wish my buddies who are hung up on Signal's E2E, and rightfully so, would at least try Telegram to see what they are missing. An E2E-default version of Telegram would put the final nails in Signal if you ask me. The decision to resist this, and they could implement it fairly beautifully for new devices like iMessage does, and the in-house MTProto protocol do seem kind of bizarre to me. But look how far it's taken them. A beautiful product.

bennofs 6y ago
Last I tried, telegram desktop on Linux didn't support e2e encrypted chats which is sad.
- imsesaok 6y ago
  telegram desktop doesn't support e2e chats at all. it's a mobile only feature, and it doesn't sync between devices, even between phones.
  - swagmoney69 6y ago
    Actually the Mac client supports it for some reason.
Angostura 6y ago
Signal user here, on iOS and using the Mac client. What am I missing?
- skinkestek 6y ago
  - Seamless sync and backup - 100x more people use it (I joined Signal years ago and I still have 1 actual conversation) - The speed and the level of polish is unmatched Of course for any serious Signal user it isn't an alternative but for many of us we only use it for postcard level anyway.
  - XorNot 6y ago
    The problem there is I see no reason why Telegram doesn't just creep up to Facebook level intrusiveness. They have the opportunity and a need for profit from a smaller advertising base. I'd bet on it actually: in a few years we'll get a big fuss when Telegram reveals their new targeted advertising functionality...
    - skinkestek 6y ago
      We'll see. I'll leave if that happens. For now Durov has kept his word for 7 years which is a whole lot longer than most. He was also clear from the start that he would, if necessary, find a non intrusive way to fund it and I feel he might be onto it.
      - XorNot 6y ago
        Telegram just promises to behave though. Nothing enforces that. WhatsApp was great too right up till Facebook bought it. Anyone who buys Telegram is buying those servers and any messages you have stored on them.
- meibo 6y ago
  Give Telegram or Matrix a try. They are both miles ahead of Signal and their teams on both sides actually seem to care about openness and usability. Signal actively discourages third-party clients and doesn't accept community contributions in most cases(not that you'd actually want to, because their codebases are trash.) We can do better. Matrix with bridges and your own server is quite a nice experience. Have a look at beeper: https://www.beeper.com/ https://www.beeper.com/
  - jakecopp 6y ago
    Adding to this, Element is a great first Matrix client :) Not involved with it, just a very happy user. https://element.io https://element.io
    - leesalminen 6y ago
      I’ve been having an issue with E2E encryption in a Room on a self-hosted homeserver with ~10 users. It has to do with a user having multiple devices, I think. There’s an ongoing issue on GitHub [0]. It’s been the only downside to Element for us, so far. Other than that I’m happy with Matrix in general. Kind of a pain trying to troubleshoot decryption keys cross-country with my mom. [0] https://github.com/vector-im/element-ios/issues/3393 https://github.com/vector-im/element-ios/issues/3393
      - jakecopp 6y ago
        I've found that issue can be solved by opening the same chat on your multiple devices at the same time, and it will send the E2E keys across. I'm thinking this may be a messaging issue rather than a technical bug in some cases - `Unable to decrypt: The sender's device has not sent us the keys for this message` isn't very helpful. I think while this isn't ideal, it's important to note (for those following along) that neither Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp support end-to-end encryption across desktop and mobile, history syncing to new devices, and a self hosted OSS server with multiple client apps.
  - vondro 6y ago
    I get why Signal's approach can be unpopular, but I don't understand the fascination with Telegram to be honest. Sure, the Android app is nice and fluid, but if I needed to use an app that is not e2e encrypted, I can use sms, or Facebook Messenger. Both have much wider adoption than Telegram.
- eptcyka 6y ago
  Ability to send pictures without lossy compression, for one. Scheduled messages, group chats that preserve history (allowing one to rotate a phone number without losing access to history). Video calls that allow one to sync the video orientation. UX that is just better designed for the lay person (at least as far as my rudimentary a/b testing goes).
Semaphor 6y ago
I’ll probably use whichever of them manages to allow me creating accounts and logging in without handing over my phone number.
benhurmarcel 6y ago
> The decision to resist this […] and the in-house MTProto protocol do seem kind of bizarre to me It's so bizarre indeed that it actually looks suspicious.
vinay427 6y ago
I'm honestly not sure what I'm missing when avoiding Telegram's non-private conversations. There's no desktop client support (unlike Signal which works on a desktop mostly seamlessly, including group video) and no option at all to backup and sync conversations between devices (unlike Signal's rather limited options). If I was alright with Telegram's non-E2EE conversations, I would prefer WhatsApp for its wider adoption among my contact base.
- eptcyka 6y ago
  What do you mean, no desktop client support? There's a fully featured desktop client for Telegram, and I've never had my desktop clients have their sqlite database corrupt itself.
  - vinay427 6y ago
    I was trying to emphasize this further which is why I (ninja) edited in the second paragraph, but unfortunately it still isn't very obvious: > when avoiding Telegram's non-private conversations
    - austhrow743 6y ago
      Kind of reads like "not sure what I'm missing by avoiding Telegram's non-private conversations" rather than the intended "taking a need for e2e as a given, I don't understand..."
  - tjohns 6y ago
    It depends on which desktop client you're using. Telegram's native Mac app (https://macos.telegram.org/ https://macos.telegram.org/) supports E2E-encrypted secret chats. Their cross platform Qt-based app (https://desktop.telegram.org/ https://desktop.telegram.org/) does not support this feature. Notably, the experience in a Telegram secret chat behaves differently then regular chats. A secret chat is tied to one device; you can't start a secret chat on your phone and pick it up on your tablet/desktop. There's also no server-side message history. Regular (non-secret) chats don't have these limitations.

bennofs 6y ago

Last I tried, telegram desktop on Linux didn't support e2e encrypted chats which is sad.

imsesaok 6y ago
telegram desktop doesn't support e2e chats at all. it's a mobile only feature, and it doesn't sync between devices, even between phones.
- swagmoney69 6y ago
  Actually the Mac client supports it for some reason.

Angostura 6y ago

Signal user here, on iOS and using the Mac client. What am I missing?

skinkestek 6y ago
- Seamless sync and backup - 100x more people use it (I joined Signal years ago and I still have 1 actual conversation) - The speed and the level of polish is unmatched Of course for any serious Signal user it isn't an alternative but for many of us we only use it for postcard level anyway.
- XorNot 6y ago
  The problem there is I see no reason why Telegram doesn't just creep up to Facebook level intrusiveness. They have the opportunity and a need for profit from a smaller advertising base. I'd bet on it actually: in a few years we'll get a big fuss when Telegram reveals their new targeted advertising functionality...
  - skinkestek 6y ago
    We'll see. I'll leave if that happens. For now Durov has kept his word for 7 years which is a whole lot longer than most. He was also clear from the start that he would, if necessary, find a non intrusive way to fund it and I feel he might be onto it.
    - XorNot 6y ago
      Telegram just promises to behave though. Nothing enforces that. WhatsApp was great too right up till Facebook bought it. Anyone who buys Telegram is buying those servers and any messages you have stored on them.
meibo 6y ago
Give Telegram or Matrix a try. They are both miles ahead of Signal and their teams on both sides actually seem to care about openness and usability. Signal actively discourages third-party clients and doesn't accept community contributions in most cases(not that you'd actually want to, because their codebases are trash.) We can do better. Matrix with bridges and your own server is quite a nice experience. Have a look at beeper: https://www.beeper.com/ https://www.beeper.com/
- jakecopp 6y ago
  Adding to this, Element is a great first Matrix client :) Not involved with it, just a very happy user. https://element.io https://element.io
  - leesalminen 6y ago
    I’ve been having an issue with E2E encryption in a Room on a self-hosted homeserver with ~10 users. It has to do with a user having multiple devices, I think. There’s an ongoing issue on GitHub [0]. It’s been the only downside to Element for us, so far. Other than that I’m happy with Matrix in general. Kind of a pain trying to troubleshoot decryption keys cross-country with my mom. [0] https://github.com/vector-im/element-ios/issues/3393 https://github.com/vector-im/element-ios/issues/3393
    - jakecopp 6y ago
      I've found that issue can be solved by opening the same chat on your multiple devices at the same time, and it will send the E2E keys across. I'm thinking this may be a messaging issue rather than a technical bug in some cases - `Unable to decrypt: The sender's device has not sent us the keys for this message` isn't very helpful. I think while this isn't ideal, it's important to note (for those following along) that neither Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp support end-to-end encryption across desktop and mobile, history syncing to new devices, and a self hosted OSS server with multiple client apps.
- vondro 6y ago
  I get why Signal's approach can be unpopular, but I don't understand the fascination with Telegram to be honest. Sure, the Android app is nice and fluid, but if I needed to use an app that is not e2e encrypted, I can use sms, or Facebook Messenger. Both have much wider adoption than Telegram.
eptcyka 6y ago
Ability to send pictures without lossy compression, for one. Scheduled messages, group chats that preserve history (allowing one to rotate a phone number without losing access to history). Video calls that allow one to sync the video orientation. UX that is just better designed for the lay person (at least as far as my rudimentary a/b testing goes).

Semaphor 6y ago

I’ll probably use whichever of them manages to allow me creating accounts and logging in without handing over my phone number.

benhurmarcel 6y ago

> The decision to resist this […] and the in-house MTProto protocol do seem kind of bizarre to me It's so bizarre indeed that it actually looks suspicious.

vinay427 6y ago

I'm honestly not sure what I'm missing when avoiding Telegram's non-private conversations. There's no desktop client support (unlike Signal which works on a desktop mostly seamlessly, including group video) and no option at all to backup and sync conversations between devices (unlike Signal's rather limited options). If I was alright with Telegram's non-E2EE conversations, I would prefer WhatsApp for its wider adoption among my contact base.

eptcyka 6y ago
What do you mean, no desktop client support? There's a fully featured desktop client for Telegram, and I've never had my desktop clients have their sqlite database corrupt itself.
- vinay427 6y ago
  I was trying to emphasize this further which is why I (ninja) edited in the second paragraph, but unfortunately it still isn't very obvious: > when avoiding Telegram's non-private conversations
  - austhrow743 6y ago
    Kind of reads like "not sure what I'm missing by avoiding Telegram's non-private conversations" rather than the intended "taking a need for e2e as a given, I don't understand..."
- tjohns 6y ago
  It depends on which desktop client you're using. Telegram's native Mac app (https://macos.telegram.org/ https://macos.telegram.org/) supports E2E-encrypted secret chats. Their cross platform Qt-based app (https://desktop.telegram.org/ https://desktop.telegram.org/) does not support this feature. Notably, the experience in a Telegram secret chat behaves differently then regular chats. A secret chat is tied to one device; you can't start a secret chat on your phone and pick it up on your tablet/desktop. There's also no server-side message history. Regular (non-secret) chats don't have these limitations.