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

51–60 of 126 posts

Re: Telegram Voice Chats

#51

Post by xiaolingxiao »

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 user here, it can add value if people are intentional, empathetic to others in the room, and have differing perspectives. There is something magical about co-creating a conversation like Jazz musicians improving a piece. When it works you feel a tangible energy that is it's own 'person', when it doesn't work it degrades into a mob. So the key here is curating people and making sure they have some common base of values.

Re: Telegram Voice Chats

#52

Post by perardi »

adkadskhj wrote: post #50
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)

Despite the potential security issues, I still use Telegram.

Where possible, I prefer to type on my proper desktop keyboard, because I am a stubborn old man and you kids with your phones, and Telegram is just so nice in that context. It uses no resources, the UI largely gets out of the way, and message sync and delivery is 99.9% reliable in my experience. (Looking at you, Messages app.)

I do worry on some level that, by not paying, I am the product in some sense. And I wish they had a full security audit. But, I have so many other potentially insecure ways for people to get my info, and really I’m too boring to stalk anyways, so I just can’t make myself too bothered.

Re: Telegram Voice Chats

#53

Post by angus_gh »

interestica wrote: post #39
curiousgal wrote: post #8

I used to mainly use Telegram but their broken notifications on Android turned me off. If a chat app can't get notifications right, it's not worth using.

Okay I thought that was just me. The majority of the time, I just don't get a notification. It's intermittent, so it's not that something is turned off. I definitely don't have the issue with other comms apps. That being said, telegram is probably my preferred app - and sometimes I actually use the broken notifications as a positive (the message isn't that important).

Try checking this website for the model of phone you have https://dontkillmyapp.com/

Re: Telegram Voice Chats

#54

Post by tenryuu »

forgotmypw17 wrote: post #24
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.

here is a copy for those not using tgram -- As Telegram approaches 500 million active users, many of you are asking the question – who is going to pay to support this growth? After all, more users mean more expenses for traffic and servers. A project of our size needs at least a few hundred million dollars per year to keep going. For most of Telegram’s history, I paid for the expenses of the company from my personal…

You can read the whole thing without an account, it is a public channel and the entire message is displayed on the t.me link. It's a bit jarring on a desktop browser because it looks like the post is cut off, but it's just a really really weird overflow with scrolling

Re: Telegram Voice Chats

#55

Post by BTCOG »

xiaolingxiao wrote: post #51
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 user here, it can add value if people are intentional, empathetic to others in the room, and have differing perspectives. There is something magical about co-creating a conversation like Jazz musicians improving a piece. When it works you feel a tangible energy that is it's own 'person', when it doesn't work it degrades into a mob. So the key here is curating people and making sure they have some common bas…

To add to this: The same reasons we have weekly team meetings on a conference call for work.

Re: Telegram Voice Chats

#56

Post by newscracker »

MatthiasP wrote: post #23

No mention of any kind of encryption?

By default, it's as good (or as bad) as email with secure transport. "Secret chats" are end-to-end encrypted, but it supports only one-to-one conversations. There is no group secret chat feature. Voice chat also being a group feature, would have the same transport level encryption as the default chats, I suppose.

Re: Telegram Voice Chats

#57

Post by markshepard »

theshrike79 wrote: post #5
f311a wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will win in terms of what? A lot of things in Telegram are done right, but that does not mean it will win the audience. Discord is a very good solution too, but I doubt people want to use it on their smartphones as a messenger.

The problem with Discord is that every single thing has their own server with 42 highly nuanced channels, intricate permissions and multiple utility bots. Then you have like 15 active users, all typing on #general Multiply this by 20 or so communities and it's an UX clusterfuck of epic proportions.

Totally Agree. We have quite a few smaller professional communities switching to our airsend (https://www.airsend.io/) exactly for the same reason. What we hear often from these users is that managing discord (tool) takes more time than the actual communication. It is ideal for large communities but if you want something simple discord is not the way to go.

Re: Telegram Voice Chats

#58

Post by berkes »

adkadskhj wrote: post #50
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)

Telegram, the client, is fully FLOSS. You can even find it on f-droid¹, contrary to e.g. Signal, which is only available for installation via closed app stores.

Do you refer to the server-stack? How would that being Open Source help you when you cannot ever verify what a server actually runs?

¹ https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.telegram.messenger/

Re: Telegram Voice Chats

#59

Post by markshepard »

znpy wrote: post #28
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

My team hosts a weekly call where we sum up our progress for the last week and loosely plan the activities for the next week. It's very useful. It adds value, since during this kind of conversation one can offer useful suggestion or another point of view on an issue that they hadn't addressed before (because they were working on something else, for example). Different use case: incident handling with tight time const…

Yes. You need both sync and async capabilities in a communication tool. It is hard to choose two different tools for that purpose. Both have a place when it comes to Team communication.

Re: Telegram Voice Chats

#60

Post by unicornporn »

adkadskhj wrote: post #50
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)

> It's one of, if not the, best UX chat message apps with so many features it's sort of mindblowing.

I'd go as far as saying it's by far the best. I have used the word unnerving to describe the fact it's so beyond the rest of the competition, yet free and without a viable business model.

I use Signal with friends and Matrix with other nerds.

Post reply on HN