Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Telegram Voice Chats

telegram.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 126 posts

Re: Telegram Voice Chats

#41

Post by zinekeller »

ninkendo wrote: post #27
zinekeller wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is literally a website for this specifically ( https://dontkillmyapp.com/ ) created by the Urbandroid team (creators of Sleep as Android). Rather annongingly, the team started out due to problems encountered on HMD/Nokia phones, since acknowledged and partially fixed ( https://sleep.urbandroid.org/documentation/faq/alarms-sleep-... ). Personal anecdote: even Google have been wishy-washy between different versio…

Ah, I realized now by context that you’re only talking about android. (You only said device manufacturers so I thought you were referring to iOS as well.) But I had this whole reply typed up for iOS so, may as well include it: — I can only speak for iOS, but it definitely doesn’t work this way on iOS. The ability to run in the background is something you can grant to any app, and there’s no special treatment of any o…

I concur. It is indeed more consistent on their devices, probably because the (relative) unfragmented nature of iOS by nature allows to simplify and focus the app development and get consistent results (unlike Android that you can't just match the UI between devices).

Re: Telegram Voice Chats

#42

Post by ThomPete »

tmakks wrote: post #22

Unpopular opinion & OT: Synchronous communication (eg. calls, video calls, real meetings) with more than two people rarely add value. Edit: Dear Downvoters, it's ok that you downvoted as it was expected but please share why you think different and give examples what value a 2+ meeting adds

Clubhouse seems to be doing something interesting with voice chat, twitter is testing out too. I think it has value as micropodcasting.

Re: Telegram Voice Chats

#43

Post by joshxyz »

tmakks wrote: post #22

Unpopular opinion & OT: Synchronous communication (eg. calls, video calls, real meetings) with more than two people rarely add value. Edit: Dear Downvoters, it's ok that you downvoted as it was expected but please share why you think different and give examples what value a 2+ meeting adds

I guess its ok for non-business purposes, e.g. catching up with friends. It was a bummer having to bounce off to Messenger for that, especially when tg's user interface is smoother.

Re: Telegram Voice Chats

#44

Post by aaomidi »

cblconfederate wrote: post #32
nikivi wrote: post #4

I found Durov's plans to monetize Telegram most interesting. https://t.me/durov/142 Team features (competing with Slack/Discord?), ad tools for telegram channels and premium stickers. Whilst keeping all the existing Telegram features.

They should integrate direct payments/donations.

Technically already exists through payment bot api

Re: Telegram Voice Chats

#45

Post by joshxyz »

ajconway wrote: post #26
tmakks wrote: post #22

Unpopular opinion & OT: Synchronous communication (eg. calls, video calls, real meetings) with more than two people rarely add value. Edit: Dear Downvoters, it's ok that you downvoted as it was expected but please share why you think different and give examples what value a 2+ meeting adds

You're thinking business, but this is more like Teamspeak (or Discord).

This this this, i primarily used tg for professional purposes but discovered the communities there lol it's indeed a little like discord.

Re: Telegram Voice Chats

#48

Post by m12k »

tmakks wrote: post #22

Unpopular opinion & OT: Synchronous communication (eg. calls, video calls, real meetings) with more than two people rarely add value. Edit: Dear Downvoters, it's ok that you downvoted as it was expected but please share why you think different and give examples what value a 2+ meeting adds

It's basically a comparison of two functions. On the one hand is the overhead of needing to schedule and maybe travel in order to meet, and amount of time wasted by people in the meeting who don't actively need to participate. On the other is the cost of context switching, risk of misunderstanding inherent in lower-bandwidth communication and delay in understanding one another that comes from asynchronicity. Whichever is more costly in a given situation loses out. In my experience, if the conversation would require a lot of back and forth (e.g. complex or delicate topic) synchronous wins, otherwise asynchronous wins out. As async tools become better, the cost of async goes down, and it comes out ahead more often. It's not always the best solution, but it often is.

Re: Telegram Voice Chats

#49

Post by karlmcguire »

escalt wrote: post #30
MatthiasP wrote: post #23

No mention of any kind of encryption?

Telegram keeps talking about how private and secure it is, but all group and private chats are not encrypted by default. Its end to end encrypted chats are very limited (only direct messages and only on one device) and rely on self-baked crypto. Their voice chat is also almost definitely not end to end encrypted, as I'm not aware of a way to do e2ee voice chat with many participants without linearly increasing bandwi…

I found it interesting that direct calls (just calling one of your contacts) can be peer-to-peer if you enable it in the settings. They even have a unique code at the top of the screen (like 5 emojis) that you can verify match on the other participant's phone.

Re: Telegram Voice Chats

#50

Post by adkadskhj »

nikivi wrote: post #4

I found Durov's plans to monetize Telegram most interesting. https://t.me/durov/142 Team features (competing with Slack/Discord?), ad tools for telegram channels and premium stickers. Whilst keeping all the existing Telegram features.

I really wish Telegram would embrace open source, security audits, etc. It's one of, if not the, best UX chat message apps with so many features it's sort of mindblowing. I'd love to use them. But.. i avoid it, because something doesn't smell right.

Allowing me to pay would be yet another right direction for Telegram, but i just can't move past the audit (and to a lesser extent, FOSS)

Post reply on HN