4 ms·
They didn't needed to go these route. Telegram for example has clients for most platforms and a web client that works in every browser and doesn't require your
by soapdog 12y ago
They didn't needed to go these route. Telegram for example has clients for most platforms and a web client that works in every browser and doesn't require your phone to be connected to the internet for it to work.
- rtpg 12y agoTelegram is a bad counter-example for various reasons. LINE has a desktop client that works well though
- ceocoder 12y agoJust curious - I remember some debate here about Telegram bug bounty from a while ago, other than that haven't seen any good/bad press about it. Why is it bad counter-example?
- rtpg 12y agoIt's a client that explicitly about security and openness, so a lot of things are going to be "self-evidently" supported. The objective is to make a good client The objective of clients like LINE and WhatsApp are to make good chat for the masses. This can come at various technical costs, because that's not their objective, whereas Telegram is , at its core, about technology.
- Aldo_MX 12y ago> for various reasons [Citation needed]
- teknologist 12y agoThere's a Telegram desktop client... for mac at least.
- jhasse 12y agoThere are desktop clients for Linux and Windows also: https://desktop.telegram.org/ https://desktop.telegram.org/
- MrBra 12y agoWhat are those reasons?
- rtpg 12y agosaid it elsewhere but Telegram was started on the basis of making a technically powerful chat program, with the whole open philosophy that's going along with it. It goes with that that having an open client and the like is in line with the objectives of the company LINE and WhatsApp were started on the basis of making a useful chat program for the masses. Usability for those on FF OS is not part of their core principles.