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

Group Video Calls

telegram.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 183 posts

Re: Group Video Calls

#51

Post by NilsIRL »

vetinari wrote: post #19
fsflover wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> whinces at telegram for not having e2e encryption by default On desktop* there is no e2ee even among the options. * where "desktop" includes GNU/Linux phones.

As far that I'm aware, it is key management/distribution problem and how to expose it to the user. So in order to not manage them, only the device with the phone number that the account is registered with can do it. Desktop apps are not the ones where you create Telegram account; you only authorize them. For another example, Threema, which is E2EE by default, doesn't allow more than one device with the account (to us…

I believe this is wrong based on the following:

1. I was able to use telegram without using the smartphone app at first, I just needed a phone number to register on desktop

2. The MacOS desktop app supports E2EE

3. Some third party desktop apps support E2EE

4. Signal has synced E2EE that works on both desktop and smartphone (And so does Matrix)

Re: Group Video Calls

#52

Post by ClumsyPilot »

excalibur wrote: post #42

Am 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?

Telegram desktop client is written in C, takes 20MB or ram and can download 1,000 messages in 3 seconds.

Teams takes 500MB of ram and pegs a quad-core cpu to 70% to updates some smileys

Re: Group Video Calls

#53

Post by dan-robertson »

qwertox wrote: post #34

To 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’m not sure I’d want group chats with thousands of members to be end-to-end encrypted. It doesn’t even seem that clear what the actual utility of it would be.

Re: Group Video Calls

#54

Post by rvz »

yewenjie wrote: post #10

Telegram is getting so many cool features that I really wonder how long can it sustain being ad-free and user-centric.

Exactly. It recently got a feature that totally obliterates Clubhouse out of the Pacific ocean.

At this point Telegram is unrivalled and already has almost everything that WhatApp has, except for E2EE turned on by default.

Re: Group Video Calls

#55

Post by input_sh »

godelski wrote: post #50
olah_1 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The only feature I can think of since that growth annoys the shit out of me.

They've started syncing notification settings, so I can either have both my laptop and my phone beeping or none. Combine that with working within a small team that primarily uses Signal and it's absolutely terrible.

Leave them off and you'll miss something important. Leave them on and my phone beeps after work hours. And since there's nothing in between pausing them for 8h or 1 day, I forget to turn them on in the morning.

Went from never needing to touch those settings to having to change them at least 5x every fucking work day.

Re: Group Video Calls

#56

Post by reader_mode »

qwertox wrote: post #34

To 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…

Telegram works better as a chat app for my use case which is why I prefer it.

I use an iPhone for iOS development and as a backup phone, I use Android as a daily driver - WhatsApp couldn't sync history when I broke my phone twice in a year and had to switch to iPhone. And I prefer using a desktop app over mobile one, if my phone dies I can still use telegram desktop (this was useful a few times I left my phone in the car and wife drove off with it, I could keep using telegram to message her, my only other option would be messenger at that point).

I don't mind privacy implications of my random chats being read by telegram.

Re: Group Video Calls

#57

Post by vetinari »

NilsIRL wrote: post #51
vetinari wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far that I'm aware, it is key management/distribution problem and how to expose it to the user. So in order to not manage them, only the device with the phone number that the account is registered with can do it. Desktop apps are not the ones where you create Telegram account; you only authorize them. For another example, Threema, which is E2EE by default, doesn't allow more than one device with the account (to us…

I believe this is wrong based on the following: 1. I was able to use telegram without using the smartphone app at first, I just needed a phone number to register on desktop 2. The MacOS desktop app supports E2EE 3. Some third party desktop apps support E2EE 4. Signal has synced E2EE that works on both desktop and smartphone (And so does Matrix)

1. Does not really matter to the argument; you cannot do E2EE on the desktop with such an account. But you could on the mobile device, once you install the app there. They call it "device of origin".

2. Which one? There are several and the one I'm running (the official one; brew cask telegram-desktop) does not.

3. They are third party and if it doesn't work nicely or has missing functionality ("why are not my chats from other devices there?"), Telegram devs can still point fingers that's not the official client and should be discussed with the third party developers. Ultimately, they will find out why the original Telegram doesn't do it.

4. Signal doesn't do cloud messages as Telegram does. You might have noticed that functionality like that makes Telegram much more popular among normal users.

Re: Group Video Calls

#58

Post by JBiserkov »

duskwuff wrote: post #31
AegirLeet wrote: post #11

Telegram 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).

Signal has server-side chat history, no? And the protocol is open. So that part of the argument is moot.

Re: Group Video Calls

#59

Post by 0xy »

joecool1029 wrote: post #6
vishnumohandas wrote: post #2

I'm amazed by the pace at which Telegram ships features, and with what finesse.

While the development teams at Telegram should be applauded I can't stress enough that it helps that they don't have E2EE and centralized most of the complexity to their server. Related regarding feature deployment: I got some negative feedback for dumping on Matrix for announcing Spaces without iOS client support. They should have waited until Element had all their major platforms covered before announcing it. It's…

Telegram does have E2EE in secret chats. WhatsApp does NOT have E2EE because it backs up your private keys to cloud storage by default. Even if you don't, your contacts might. Therefore WhatsApp is less secure.

Re: Group Video Calls

#60

Post by duskwuff »

JBiserkov wrote: post #58
duskwuff wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Signal has server-side chat history, no? And the protocol is open. So that part of the argument is moot.

Signal chat history is client-side. You have to explicitly "back up" and "restore" messages to move to a new device, and if you lose your phone, your chat history is gone forever.

https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007059752-Ba...

Post reply on HN