Telegram is getting so many cool features that I really wonder how long can it sustain being ad-free and user-centric.
They have 1 billion dollar[1], and working on ads[2]
Group Video Calls
41–50 of 183 posts
Re: Group Video Calls
#42Am I missing something here? This just looks like Zoom or Teams or any of the other video calling apps that have been running the world for the past year. What's so special about it?
Re: Group Video Calls
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I know, one-on-one chats are not E2EE by default (there's a "secret chat" opt-in) and group chats cannot be encrypted at all. Has that changed?
Not supporting E2EE (cite: Telegram is not E2EE) and E2EE being not on by default are two very different things. Not being on by default has an impact on other things, that the users value more. If they were on by default, they would lose it and Telegram would lose part of its appeal. This way, users themselves can choose the trade-off they are happy with.
Not having it enabled by default means most people will never enable it at all. That's just plain reckless.
Privacy is a human right; it shouldn't be part of any "trade-off", just like you can't sell yourself into slavery, even if you really wanted to.
Re: Group Video Calls
#44Telegram is not E2EE. Avoid.
E2EE is genuinely hard to implement in the context of a chat service with server-side chat history, large (10k+ user) group chats, and multiple clients (including web applications).
I'd flip that around and say that server-side chat history, large group chats and multiple clients are hard to implement in the context of an E2EE chat service. What I mean by that is: E2EE is a necessity, not some nice-to-have feature.
Building a chat service with server-side chat history but without E2EE is like building a car with very nice headlights that doesn't actually move.
Re: Group Video Calls
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not supporting E2EE (cite: Telegram is not E2EE) and E2EE being not on by default are two very different things. Not being on by default has an impact on other things, that the users value more. If they were on by default, they would lose it and Telegram would lose part of its appeal. This way, users themselves can choose the trade-off they are happy with.
Not having it enabled by default means most people will never enable it at all. That's just plain reckless. Privacy is a human right; it shouldn't be part of any "trade-off", just like you can't sell yourself into slavery, even if you really wanted to.
> Not having it enabled by default means most people will never enable it at all. That's just plain reckless.
Yet, there we are. People value that other functionality more. You may not like it, but that's how they are.
> Privacy is a human right; it shouldn't be part of any "trade-off", just like you can't sell yourself into slavery, even if you really wanted to.
You are now off the rails. The problem with the trade-offs is not social.
Re: Group Video Calls
#46To me Telegram feels like the red corner district of a city. I simply don't feel like I can trust it, there's something very shady about it. I wouldn't be surprised if Telegram reads those exclusive Bitcoin whale groups and uses that insider info. Group chats are not end to end encrypted. That being said, WhatsApp is like the authorized garage where you know that you'll get the service which is officially recognized…
I laughed at this, but am curious where you place Signal and Matrix in this analogy? Both feel like good services that aren't authorized, per say.
Re: Group Video Calls
#47Telegram is getting so many cool features that I really wonder how long can it sustain being ad-free and user-centric.
As long as the Russian government is able to keep funding it? :)
Can you please at least read the first paragraph of wikipedia before making allegations? Russian government hates telegram with a passion
Re: Group Video Calls
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
As long as the Russian government is able to keep funding it? :)
Be nice if Americans could make something this good again. Have you seen WhatsApp lately? It's a pure travesty.
They already have and it is called Quill. [0]
Works on web, macOS, Windows, Linux, iOS, and Android and already looks promising to be the diamond standard of chat software and compete against the alternatives.
Impressive piece of extremely high quality software so rare in this software industry.
Re: Group Video Calls
#49To me Telegram feels like the red corner district of a city. I simply don't feel like I can trust it, there's something very shady about it. I wouldn't be surprised if Telegram reads those exclusive Bitcoin whale groups and uses that insider info. Group chats are not end to end encrypted. That being said, WhatsApp is like the authorized garage where you know that you'll get the service which is officially recognized…
I laughed at this, but am curious where you place Signal and Matrix in this analogy? Both feel like good services that aren't authorized, per say.
XMPP would be the local electrician with a mustache and a calm tone that can fix anything for you pennies.
We used to have them in Hungary. I miss them. "Szaki"
Re: Group Video Calls
#50I'm amazed by the pace at which Telegram ships features, and with what finesse.
They have the most productive and high quality engineers in the game. And I say this as someone that whinces at telegram for not having e2e encryption by default.
Same. This has been my frustration with Signal lately. They've had a large growth in a userbase but feels like they aren't growing their team fast enough to become real contenders with Telegram and WA. You don't have to move fast and break things, but you do have to move.