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

Telegram is booming but needs advertisers and $700M soon

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 333 posts

Re: Telegram is booming but needs advertisers and $700M soon

#251

Post by skinkestek »

ash wrote: post #72
dukeofdoom wrote: post #68

I switched to Telagram from Whatsapp, after the change in privacy update. I've seen a lot of my contacts switch over too. Things I don't like: 1. Low volume during calls 2. The UI needs work. Like for example, I click on my contact messages. To call that contact. I now have to select a ... menu item. Or once I start typing a message, the option to attach photos disappears.

Strange to see people switch from end-to-end encrypted WhatsApp to non-encrypted (by default) Telegram. What do I miss?

1. why do everyone insist E2E-encryption is necessary for IM but not for email and letters ( the alternatives)? Because that is mostly what I use Telegram for.

2. I could have a hard time choosing between Signal and Telegram some days. With WhatsApp I know Facebook will do metadata analysis on my contacts and my conversations (possible even with E2E-encryption). They'll also upload some or all my messages unencrypted to Google if I or any of my contacts enable backups.

Does that explain it?

Re: Telegram is booming but needs advertisers and $700M soon

#252

Post by ClumsyPilot »

ddeck wrote: post #155
hypertele-Xii wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WhatsApp doesn't let me login from two mobile devices. Can't use it from phone and tablet at the same. It's moronic. Telegram does, so...

You may not prefer it, but I don't think it's moronic; it was a design choice. Whatsapp messages pass through their servers, but do not remain there. They are effectively sent from the sending device to the receiving device. This means that your messages reside on your device. When you use the desktop or web client, it's basically remote operating your phone. This famously allowed Whatsapp to achieve massive scale wi…

"This famously allowed Whatsapp to achieve massive scale with relatively few resources."

And now they've had a decade to address the issue.

Re: Telegram is booming but needs advertisers and $700M soon

#253

Post by jakecopp »

einpoklum wrote: post #232
jakecopp wrote: post #231

Are there many here who use a Matrix client like Element? [1] Or one of the dozens of compatible chat apps? [2] Why don't more people use it? I can't understand why people would jump from one closed source silo like WhatsApp to another closed source Silo like Telegram or Signal. The UX of Element is terrific now. [1]: https://element.io/ [2]: https://matrix.org/clients/

1. Signal is FOSS. Telegram is partially FOSS (the client). 2. At least on the desktop, the UX of element is pretty bad IMHO. It's slow and feels like a web browser (and it probably is something like that under the hood, I would bet). Telegram feels much nicer (but only as an instant messaging app; you can't make it look and feel like IRC for chatting, while Element can be twisted to partially resemble an IRC client)…

> At least on the desktop, the UX of element is pretty bad IMHO.

I agree it can be slow as it's web based, but could I ask why you find the UX bad? I'd be interested in helping improve it.

> Signal is FOSS.

It appears to be abandoned: https://linuxreviews.org/Signal_Appears_To_Have_Abandoned_Th...

The signal client may be FOSS, but alternative clients are not allowed to use the Signal server. As Signal is not federated, hosting other servers is not possible. Below is a message by the creator of Signal `moxie0`:

> I'm not OK with LibreSignal using our servers, and I'm not OK with LibreSignal using the name "Signal." You're free to use our source code for whatever you would like under the terms of the license, but you're not entitled to use our name or the service that we run. [1]

> If you think running servers is difficult and expensive (you're right), ask yourself why you feel entitled for us to run them for your product.

[1]: https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issueco...

Re: Telegram is booming but needs advertisers and $700M soon

#254

Post by mvzvm »

eptcyka wrote: post #242
tomComb wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But again you are conflating the irresponsible handling of my personal data - eg. my ISP collects and sells my personal data without my authorization - with personalized ads. There are lots of companies that have a history of never selling, losing, leaking etc. their users' data, such as Apple & Google. So why is it one of the defining battles of our times to force Google etc. to show me less relevant (and therefore…

Both of Apple and Google are leaking my data into prism. I don't care about ad personalization as much as I hate tracking. These are related, but not one and the same. I think personalized ads are overvalued and their price is driven up by either global conglomerates that are looking to make vast amounts of money from small margins or startups with VC cash to burn. I've never heard an organic business success story a…

And why are you against PRISM?

Re: Telegram is booming but needs advertisers and $700M soon

#255

Post by skinkestek »

XorNot wrote: post #236
skinkestek wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- 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.

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...

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.

Re: Telegram is booming but needs advertisers and $700M soon

#256

Post by XorNot »

skinkestek wrote: post #255
XorNot wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

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.

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.

Re: Telegram is booming but needs advertisers and $700M soon

#257

Post by yosito »

Telegram has a major spam problem. I've got two Telegram accounts, both with the strictest privacy settings possible. One is using a US number, the other a European number. Both have the number set to private. Somehow, spammers, bots, etc are finding me on Telegram and sending me unsolicited messages 2+ times per day. All the stereotypical spam topics, plus occasional disturbing porn. These messages aren't filtered into a different inbox or even silent notifications. I'm on the verge of deleting both of my Telegram accounts over this.

Re: Telegram is booming but needs advertisers and $700M soon

#258

Post by golergka »

Aachen wrote: post #204
Aloha wrote: post #149

I'm an early adopter for telegram, and I'd be glad to give them some money. I signed up in 2014, basically the first or second time it hit HN, and over time, I've built out a pretty decent social network on there, and run a dozen or so specialty community chats. I'd be glad to pay them something, 25 a year or so, even if I don't get anything special from it (though, if I did want something, it'd be better access to s…

Same. I've started moving away since a few months, though, because the revenue model was not happening and I can see how well it works compared to even a big commercial undertaking like Facebook messenger or Slack. The software development alone must cost many millions, not to mention the movies people are sharing actively. It is (was?) getting super super fishy, given that everything is plain text (they have some tr…

Quickly searching your chat history, going through all your contacts and group chats, 8 years back, without the need to downloading all that history to your device and building a search index first is a killer feature. Wouldn't it be impossible to implement without trusting the server with plaintext?

Re: Telegram is booming but needs advertisers and $700M soon

#259

Post by ObsoleteNerd »

davidweatherall wrote: post #14
ObsoleteNerd wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve used Telegram for years now, along with almost all my family and friends. I’m a huge fan of it, and it’s basically the only IM I use anymore (other than Signal with some tech friends). If Telegram adds ads, rather than offer us a chance to just pay them, I’ll delete it instantly and push everyone I know to do the same. I absolutely despise ads of any kind, and go to a decent amount of effort to block them from a…

Are you happy with services that have ads, but give the option to remove them for a subscription fee?

Absolutely. I gladly pay for YouTube Premium, Subscribe to Twitch streamers I like to remove ads there, and other services that do an ad-supported free tier than a premium ad-free tier.

Other replies to me are reading me wrong, I didn't say "I hate ads therefore I believe no one should ever use ads", I said "I hate ads and would happily pay for me to personally not see them". Telegram can fill their apps with ads if they want, for those that can't/won't pay, as long as there's an option for us to pay and not see them.

Re: Telegram is booming but needs advertisers and $700M soon

#260

Post by beckingz »

perardi wrote: post #230
theleftfielder wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny to see this towards the top of the comments here. Feels like not that long ago that Telegram updates would be downvotes on HackerNews because "you should never trust an app that designed their own encryption protocol."

As the author of the parent comment… …yes, I am aware Telegram does not use the absolute best practices, and at the very least, I imagine it can be cracked wide open by a nation-state intelligence agency. Which is why, for my occasional super-secret must-be-hush-hush chats, I use other clients. For my day-to-day chats? Telegram. Because, to be privileged, to be flippant: the NSA is welcome to read my texts about what…

Only if they work hard for it.
Post reply on HN