Live data from Hacker News

Messaging apps shouldn't make money – Pavel Durov and Telegram

wired.co.uk

61–70 of 75 posts

Re: Messaging apps shouldn't make money – Pavel Durov and Telegram

#61
Since the early 90's, newcomers to the Internet have attempted to monetize the existing phenomenon which the Internet - in all its true free glory - has allowed.

There have been countless attempts to 'own email', and before that, 'own Gopher' and 'own Archie' and so on. There was, once, Hotmail. Then came GMail, and then .. Facebook.

It's quite possible to maintain your own social network with email alone. You can achieve the same results with a mailing list as you can with the Facebook timeline.

The only difference is that you must educate the people in your network to understand how the technology works, and how to operate it in order to function in as effective a manner as is required to maintain a high standard of communication. The fact that this is nearly impossible in the modern context - that you cannot get a group of 200+ people to operate email in the same, standardized manner, is what Facebook - and other mass-communication media - depend upon in order to gain their market share.

I would abandon Facebook in 5 minutes if I could be guaranteed that the people I care about - the links in my social network - were as competent at handling the solution as would be required in order to maintain the quality of communication that Facebook currently delivers. Alas, this is not possible - and those who are attempting to monetize and profit from this mass stupidity will do little to address the issue - for after all, it matters that people don't know how to write a proper email. This is the only reason Facebook has survived as long as it has.

If you want to truly revolutionize communications in this day and age, do something that allows people to use the existing, free, technologies of communication to increase the quality of communication among the masses. Alas, this is a very difficult problem - and like all social ills, the solution is education. The absolute hardest problem there is to solve, out there, today: teaching someone how to use an existing technology to effectively communicate.

Re: Messaging apps shouldn't make money – Pavel Durov and Telegram

#62

I wish there was something like Bitcoin for messaging. Users need a better way to prove their identities (or hide them, depending on the situation) and be able to verify peers. The current hierarchical security system is probably destined to require money, but the free alternatives make me uncomfortable because they tend to need private keys. What I really want is an open version of Skype where the private key can al…

https://tox.im ?

That's really cool, I like how you just give the other user a Tox id token and it sets up the secure channel. I wonder if that's a general approach for secure communication, because as long as it's sent through another secure channel (that may use the traditional SSL certificates from an authority) it could be used to avoid a MITM attack.

Maybe a way to do this in the future with an insecure channel is to give the peer your contact token using only context that both of you know. So the above token could get converted to a human-readable string like "that place we met that first time and what you said to me with 12345abcdef on the end" and the other party would have to know you to figure out how to find you.

Proving who you are beyond that point would probably involve some back and forth questioning like in spy movies or a video call (which could be faked in 5-10 years with computer rendering) so shared history will be key.

It already sounds like it can run over Tor, but it would be nice if it had a standard socket wrapper that could be run over UDP NAT tunneling to look like an SSH VPN. Maybe WebRTC could be integrated with it somehow. I just mean that I'd like the negotiation phase to be separate so that if it works, you're just presented with a secure socket.

Re: Messaging apps shouldn't make money – Pavel Durov and Telegram

#63

Just the opposite. The free software movement has led to apps and programs where the users are the product, not the customer, and companies bend over backwards for advertisers. The companies have no incentive to care about your privacy, just your data. Paid messaging apps, however (at least until they get acquired by advertising companies like Facebook), give companies incentives to service their customers first, and…

> Just the opposite. The free software movement has led to apps and programs where the users are the product, not the customer, and companies bend over backwards for advertisers.

That's a business model common for SAAS applications, I don't really think it's related to free software. Gcc on linux doesn't send usage statistics to someone, I hope.

Re: Messaging apps shouldn't make money – Pavel Durov and Telegram

#64

I wish there was something like Bitcoin for messaging. Users need a better way to prove their identities (or hide them, depending on the situation) and be able to verify peers. The current hierarchical security system is probably destined to require money, but the free alternatives make me uncomfortable because they tend to need private keys. What I really want is an open version of Skype where the private key can al…

I have developed an instant messenger for Android called EnsiChat [1].

For identity, I use an RSA key pair. For key exchange, devices send their public key to direct neighbors, and you can visually check that the key is correct.

I have also thought about implementing transport over internet (right now it's only Bluetooth). But that would require a lot of effort.

[1] https://github.com/Nutomic/ensichat

Re: Messaging apps shouldn't make money – Pavel Durov and Telegram

#67
No such thing as a free lunch.

Telegram hasn't done a very good job of eliminating the possibility of profit. The secret chat feature is actually a marginal use case. By default messages are readable by the back end. In fact, group chats are also reasable by the back end always, and any conversation which can be accessed from multiple devices. And last I heard, the official windows desktop app does not have secret chats.

All of these messages are the normal use case on telegram. And the text is being indexed by the back end for easy searching capabilities. So essentially telegram has built a search engine for the conversations of tens of millions of people who are slightly more paranoid and want a secure messenger. Not only that, many of the tens of millions have shared their entire address book with names and phone numbers because the official clients required them to.

If they're trying to avoid having valuable information that someone would pay money for, they're not doing a very good job.

Re: Messaging apps shouldn't make money – Pavel Durov and Telegram

#68
post #51

Messaging services (with say >100k users) should fall under general laws for telecommunications. For instance, this would solve the problem that messaging services don't interface with eachother (lock-in), and it would solve the problem of the provider peeking into any of the messages for whatever reason.

Couldn't disagree more. Regulation has not solved any of these concerns, in fact quite the opposite. Regulation of telecommunication has resulted in some of the biggest and well-seated monopolies on the planet. Please, god, no. Messaging services should fall under exactly one law of the land, and that's the First Amendment.

Re: Messaging apps shouldn't make money – Pavel Durov and Telegram

#69

Telegram is a great messaging apps. Private, desktop and web support, fast, better UI compared to WhatsApp. The problem is my friend don't know it so I have to be stuck with WhatsApp for now.

The fast follower problem.

Re: Messaging apps shouldn't make money – Pavel Durov and Telegram

#70
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

XMPP have troubles with synchronizing chats between clients, with push notifications, with user-friendly mobile clients. I like XMPP, I did set up my own server, but I finally abandoned it. It's usable only with one client, preferably on desktop.

>synchronizing chats between clients, The Carbons XEP[0] is now fairly widely supported and does exactly this. >user-friendly mobile clients. Conversations[1] is excellent and is free software. >push notifications The centralized system of push notifactions on Android and iOS is not yet supported, it's true, but XMPP with its extensions has pretty good support for battery-constrained devices with intermittent network…

Not to diminish the good sides, but multi-device XMPP experience is a quite complicated matter even today. For example, you'll have to give up on OTR, and you'll have to choose the software carefully.
Post reply on HN