Telegram Desktop reaches version 1.0(telegram.org)
telegram.org
Telegram Desktop reaches version 1.0
https://telegram.org/blog/desktop-1-0
195 comments
Native all the way! Opening github page of app and seeing that pink line instead of yellow (line that represents languages used in project) made me smile! I am really surprised they did native app, plus it looks really nice, I tought "sigh, another electron app", but to my surprise I was wrong! Good job for guys at Telegram, respect.
Even the previous layout (which I personally preferred, but tastes…) still looked like a webapp more than native.. in a good way, never had any glitches and I really wonder how much it must have took them to make all the animations work so nicely. I loved toggling between chats and settings to see if it broke.. but never did!
> "sigh, another electron app"
Awesome Electron Apps
+ VS Code (Which was light years ahead of Atom but that gap has narrowed)
+ RStudio
+ Discord
Awesome Electron Apps
+ VS Code (Which was light years ahead of Atom but that gap has narrowed)
+ RStudio
+ Discord
Your point is? Emacs/Vim/Sublime are faster, more extensible and native compared to VS Code. RStudio I didn't use, nor I programmed in R, and I didn't know it was Electron app anyway.
I used VIM on my Amiga. Today I am mostly using VS Code on my 8 year old Dell at work. For coding there is no performance issues.
My Point: VS Code is a great electron application. Works great.
My Point: VS Code is a great electron application. Works great.
It is but it's slower than Vim. I've tried it. It is fast, for Electron app. Try opening huge text or log file in it.
> It is but it's slower than Vim.
VS Code < Vim < Vi < ed
I don't get the text editor speed as an issue ever. I used Vim (I use Vim mode in all my editors) not because it was faster on the CPU it was because it made my work faster. Today VS Code makes me work fast. I seriously have a 8 year old Dell crappy corporate computer for work and there is no noticeable slow down on either RStudio or VS Code.
VS Code < Vim < Vi < ed
I don't get the text editor speed as an issue ever. I used Vim (I use Vim mode in all my editors) not because it was faster on the CPU it was because it made my work faster. Today VS Code makes me work fast. I seriously have a 8 year old Dell crappy corporate computer for work and there is no noticeable slow down on either RStudio or VS Code.
No secret chats in Telegram Desktop means its primary selling point is lost.
?
I - and I guess many with me - don't trust the encryption at all.
I assume the crypto might be broken, NSA and FSB and aliens might be listening but I don't care.
My reasons to use it:
Desktop support is way better than Whatsapp.
More possibilities (bots, channels mostly).
And because I don't want to support Whatsapp by being part of the network effect that keeps people on that platform.
The reasons I use private chats sometimes is just to use autodelete to protect my conversations with my wife against my kids.
I - and I guess many with me - don't trust the encryption at all.
I assume the crypto might be broken, NSA and FSB and aliens might be listening but I don't care.
My reasons to use it:
Desktop support is way better than Whatsapp.
More possibilities (bots, channels mostly).
And because I don't want to support Whatsapp by being part of the network effect that keeps people on that platform.
The reasons I use private chats sometimes is just to use autodelete to protect my conversations with my wife against my kids.
The encryption is often cited as its primary selling point here, but I don't think that's too representative. Certainly it isn't for me and most other Telegram users I know. I don't care much about that as I don't really trust any messaging app enough to send really confidential information through them.
For me, for example, he selling point is having an interface as slick as Whatsapp's, but not being tied to the phone, not having to necessarily give your phone number, sending whatever attachments you want, and getting a searchable log in the cloud.
Bots are also a popular feature with many users.
For me, for example, he selling point is having an interface as slick as Whatsapp's, but not being tied to the phone, not having to necessarily give your phone number, sending whatever attachments you want, and getting a searchable log in the cloud.
Bots are also a popular feature with many users.
Telegram most certainly required me to enter mobile phone number. (Wouldn't even take a landline!)
Sorry, I didn't express myself too clearly. I meant that you can add contacts without giving them your phone number. You do have to give Telegram your number.
I think they are referring to the username functionality that Telegram has — https://telegram.org/faq#q-what-are-usernames-how-do-i-get-o...
You should try Wire [1] for multi-device sync and multi-OS use that has all chats encrypted end-to-end (like secret chats). It's not yet on par with the Telegram speed and UX, but it's quite good.
[1]: https://wire.com
[1]: https://wire.com
I'm confused, how are there no secret chats? I use them all the time from Desktop.. but maybe you mean Windows? I don't recall trying them from Windows - i use the OSX version.
Secret chats on OSX has the same UX as secret chats on my Android client, fwiw.
Secret chats on OSX has the same UX as secret chats on my Android client, fwiw.
You're probably using the Mac app. The post is about the Telegram Desktop cross-platform app, that doesn't support secret chats.
Weird, so i guess for OSX they have two desktop clients. Such ambiguous wording. Thanks
Whats wrong with Electron Apps?
Bloated, take too much RAM and don't use the OS features that I paid for.
Unfortunately, the cross platform UI alternatives are all terrible.
I don't consider Qt, wxWidgets, Swing, JavaFX, FireMonkey, <build your own layer> terrible.
For me it looks like web devs that don't want to learn native APIs.
For me it looks like web devs that don't want to learn native APIs.
In my experience building Qt apps for a major automotive manufacturer (and more recently, building a web app), the latter is much easier, even if you know C++ and Qt and have mediocre knowledge of web tech. If you don't know C++, then add 6-24 months to the Qt estimate, and expect it to have more bugs than an Appalachian motel.
I'm not a fan because if I have 50 electron apps I have 50 builds of chromium/nodejs. This is bad because:
* Lot of wasted disk space.
* Each app loads a whole chromium/nodejs: lots of wasted RAM.
* The chromiums may not all be the latest. This could be bad if those have network exposure: https://sobersecurity.blogspot.mx/2017/01/looks-like-you-hav...
* Lot of wasted disk space.
* Each app loads a whole chromium/nodejs: lots of wasted RAM.
* The chromiums may not all be the latest. This could be bad if those have network exposure: https://sobersecurity.blogspot.mx/2017/01/looks-like-you-hav...
They're also bad platform citizens. Even in minor details - e.g. they don't exclude their browser cache dirs (which of course aren't in the OS cache dir!) from TimeMachine backups, so the incremental backups get clogged by random image caches. Accessibility is limited. Right click doesn't work. And more and more.
> Right click doesn't work. And more and more.
MacOS? I fail to see that this is the way it works in RStudio, VS Code and Atom???
MacOS? I fail to see that this is the way it works in RStudio, VS Code and Atom???
It doesn't in Slack and some other Electron apps. You just get generic "copy" popup and bunch of functionality is awkwardly bunched into hidden click menus which make me think there's an issue with creating these menus.
https://github.com/electron/electron/pull/2232
Looks like it was addressed in 2015 but I don't think the other applications used the fix.
Looks like it was addressed in 2015 but I don't think the other applications used the fix.
Have you ever taken a look at how much resources it consumes by comparison?
We would not have charge our phones every day and laptops would last for longer if anyone cared about how much their application consumes. It's ridiculous.
Good engineering isn't just about features.
We would not have charge our phones every day and laptops would last for longer if anyone cared about how much their application consumes. It's ridiculous.
Good engineering isn't just about features.
[deleted]
I really wish they would port the amazing thin Mac UI to other platforms. It's everything I want in a minimal, yet modern and clean looking IM UX.
You mean Cocoa? It won't happen.
It's Qt by the way, and it's good on the three platforms.
This is the GitHub repo. https://github.com/telegramdesktop/tdesktop
Development has always looked a bit fishy to me, though. The main developer is anonymous (using the name/pic of a TV character), maybe it's even several people using the same profile.
This is the GitHub repo. https://github.com/telegramdesktop/tdesktop
Development has always looked a bit fishy to me, though. The main developer is anonymous (using the name/pic of a TV character), maybe it's even several people using the same profile.
> It's Qt by the way, and it's good on the three platforms.
I can't call "good" no accessibility support on macOS. But anyway Telegram Desktop is not the primary client for Macs, they have Cocoa-based alternative: https://macos.telegram.org/
I can't call "good" no accessibility support on macOS. But anyway Telegram Desktop is not the primary client for Macs, they have Cocoa-based alternative: https://macos.telegram.org/
That's probably Nikolai Durov.
I don't get it.
Why is native better than browser application? Browser application is by definition better sandboxed and can do much less damage to the system.
Normal application can do mayhem. And Telegram needs root access for installation... do I want to give it root access? When I can just open another tab?
Why is native better than browser application? Browser application is by definition better sandboxed and can do much less damage to the system.
Normal application can do mayhem. And Telegram needs root access for installation... do I want to give it root access? When I can just open another tab?
Performance considerations.
Telegram at idle sits at 80mb ram and <0.01% cpu. Wire for example sits at 250mb idle and waffles between 0.05% and 2% cpu. Discord sits at 200mb idle and waffles between 0.01% and 0.10%, leaning towards the latter, jumping above it every few seconds at least.
Telegram at idle sits at 80mb ram and <0.01% cpu. Wire for example sits at 250mb idle and waffles between 0.05% and 2% cpu. Discord sits at 200mb idle and waffles between 0.01% and 0.10%, leaning towards the latter, jumping above it every few seconds at least.
Some users enjoy that software developers take advantage of the features of the OS they bought for a better UI/UX and performance.
Normal app can do mayhem just as any app can, even Electron one. I do not use Telegram, and do not know about root access, and it should be investigated. But root access is not always needed for native apps.
Why is it better? Hundreds of reason, you can see down below. I will try to sum it up why I like native over electron in 3 words: responsiveness, robustness, cleanliness. Electron on desktop is resource hog for me. It is good for people that don't mind that, and that are deep into JS ecosystem. I am not, and I always prefer native app, partly because I am on macOS and Cocoa looks beautiful.
Why is it better? Hundreds of reason, you can see down below. I will try to sum it up why I like native over electron in 3 words: responsiveness, robustness, cleanliness. Electron on desktop is resource hog for me. It is good for people that don't mind that, and that are deep into JS ecosystem. I am not, and I always prefer native app, partly because I am on macOS and Cocoa looks beautiful.
Electron apps are still native apps and have the same security story. They just include a browser.
Oooh, people are comparing native and Electron apps. Then yeah, in that case native makes sense.
I thought they are talking about the chrome app version of telegram, which I am using right now.
I thought they are talking about the chrome app version of telegram, which I am using right now.
Telegram Desktop doesn't need root access for installation. It's just a tar.xz file you can extract anywhere.
And i don't get it, why kids today want only a browser. All that flame wars about the best window manager we fought and now we end up with one window only and a fucking tab bar?
I love Telegram for the usability more than anything else, and don't really care for the encryption (which I find more of a curiosity).
Telegram hits a few sweet spots with me:
Telegram hits a few sweet spots with me:
- Movement between devices is seamless (I can go from my webview in BSD to my Mac OS Native to my iOS native app and not miss a beat).
- Telegram is very reliable in situations with poor connectivity. This is pure anecdote on my side, but in the most crowded venues I've been to: Messenger, Line, and WhatsApp have performed worse than Telegram.
- Telegram's API is ridiculously open, even if it's backend source isn't. For most practical purposes, Telegram gives you full access, and is completely okay with you creating a 3rd party client
As much as Signal from a idealistic point of view is better, Telegram works so well between my desktop and phone that it's a no brainer.
The API is so easy and fun to work with. It's a huge boon for me, i can't imagine switching to anything without a good "bot" API.
A brilliant native desktop app is one of the reasons why I prefer telegram over other apps of this kind. It's smooth, light and easy to use.
Also, unlike WhatsApp web, it's not a proxy for the phone app, thus doesn't drain its battery and still works if your phone is broken or lost.
Yeah. And just to add to both of the above, stickers in telegram are visually brilliant. I wonder how many illustrators do they have working with them.
> ...how many ...
Basically anyone who wants. I have a sticker set with friends of mine : )
Basically anyone who wants. I have a sticker set with friends of mine : )
Next to that, you can create your own sticker packs.
i like the whatsapp web because i dont have to install something now just so i could send a message to somebody,
and because its a proxy for the phone app i dont have to worry that i got the message on the desktop but its not synced to mobile ( im looking at you skype )
It's awful for me. I constantly have to unlock my phone because web refuses to send anything or even refuses to load, as it says my phone is not connected to the internet/etc.
Really terrible and frustrating UX for me. I loathe that web interface.
Really terrible and frustrating UX for me. I loathe that web interface.
Honestly, a modern chat app should have both. There should be a web client, and a native client.
Riot and Wire both seem to have that. Riot uses a WebApp-as-Native kind of thing, while Wire actually seems to have a native app.
Riot and Wire both seem to have that. Riot uses a WebApp-as-Native kind of thing, while Wire actually seems to have a native app.
PSA: Telegram is dangerous snake oil—bad crypto.
Don't use it, don't let friends use it.
https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/81899003583181619...
https://twitter.com/kaepora/status/819181464369577984
https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/81919238137120358...
Don't use it, don't let friends use it.
https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/81899003583181619...
https://twitter.com/kaepora/status/819181464369577984
https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/81919238137120358...
I was just about to post something similar. I'm actually surprised to see a positive post of Telegram on HN. For the love of crypto, please stick to Signal protocol-based messaging applications.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Protocol
Edit: add link http://www.cryptofails.com/post/70546720222/telegrams-crypta...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Protocol
Edit: add link http://www.cryptofails.com/post/70546720222/telegrams-crypta...
Are there any Signal-based messaging applications that work on the desktop without having to tether an Android or IOS smartphone to it, and without having to use a phone number as identifier?
Wire.
* open source, code on github
* e2e encryption (apparently derivative of Signal's Axolotl double ratchet)
* chat/voice/video, and group chats (all encrypted always)
* based in Switzerland, coding out of Berlin
* clients for iOS, Android, Mac, Windows, Linux, Web
* can sign up with phone number or email (or username? Not sure - I think you can find contacts via username, not sure you can sign up without email)
* reasonably responsive on twitter
* yada yada yada
* open source, code on github
* e2e encryption (apparently derivative of Signal's Axolotl double ratchet)
* chat/voice/video, and group chats (all encrypted always)
* based in Switzerland, coding out of Berlin
* clients for iOS, Android, Mac, Windows, Linux, Web
* can sign up with phone number or email (or username? Not sure - I think you can find contacts via username, not sure you can sign up without email)
* reasonably responsive on twitter
* yada yada yada
I like it, but what about all the tracking?
Things like this: https://github.com/wireapp/wire-desktop/issues/80
Then there is the fact that the client acts as a browser that fetches information from the web automatically without blocking trackers itself. This is leaking metadata and actual data.
Things like this: https://github.com/wireapp/wire-desktop/issues/80
Then there is the fact that the client acts as a browser that fetches information from the web automatically without blocking trackers itself. This is leaking metadata and actual data.
Riot.im uses the OLM encryption library (that is also used by XMPP OMEMO, see the OMEMO XEP). The OLM protocol is (I gather) very similar to the Signal protocol.
Riot is based on Matrix which is a decentralized protocol (you're not tied to one company), and it doesn't need your phone number.
Riot is based on Matrix which is a decentralized protocol (you're not tied to one company), and it doesn't need your phone number.
OMEMO [1] is based on Axolotl (aka Signal's protocol) and you can use it with Gajim on the desktop. Still very experimental though :(
[1] https://conversations.im/omemo/
[1] https://conversations.im/omemo/
This. People say Telegram is bad even though it's no worse than any other popular product, or has a different set of advantages/disadvantages both security- and privacy-wise.
From a security and privacy perspective, Telegram is substantially worse than its competitors, so this is a little rhetorical sleight of hand you've just pulled here.
If you want to argue that Telegram and Signal are comparable because Telegram has better UX and Signal better security and some people prefer UX to security, that's fine (I could not disagree more strongly, but at least it's a coherent argument). But don't pretend the thread isn't about security to make people believe that there's controversy about whether Signal is more secure. There is no controversy: Signal won the Levchin prize this year for the Signal Protocol and sets the standard for secure chat, and Telegram... well, let's just suffice it to say that it does not meet that standard.
If you want to argue that Telegram and Signal are comparable because Telegram has better UX and Signal better security and some people prefer UX to security, that's fine (I could not disagree more strongly, but at least it's a coherent argument). But don't pretend the thread isn't about security to make people believe that there's controversy about whether Signal is more secure. There is no controversy: Signal won the Levchin prize this year for the Signal Protocol and sets the standard for secure chat, and Telegram... well, let's just suffice it to say that it does not meet that standard.
Wire? (Haven't tried it personally, and I don't think there is an independent review of their implementation of the crypto)
Facebook Messenger.
Is Facebook Messenger Signal-based (i.e. end-to-end encrypted with a Signal/Axolotl double ratchet) as GP requested?
I somehow doubt it.
EDIT: Oh, I was mistaken, apparently there is an option now. From Wikipedia:
On October 4, 2016, Facebook deployed end-to-end encryption as an optional feature for Facebook Messenger users. It is available in an optional mode called "Secret Conversations" and uses the Signal Protocol.
I somehow doubt it.
EDIT: Oh, I was mistaken, apparently there is an option now. From Wikipedia:
On October 4, 2016, Facebook deployed end-to-end encryption as an optional feature for Facebook Messenger users. It is available in an optional mode called "Secret Conversations" and uses the Signal Protocol.
Wait, are you saying messenger is secure and private? As if Facebook would want to give up a source of data for marketing?
It's opt-in end-to-end encrypted with Signal Protocol now, so Facebook does in fact give up that data. Having said that, you should prefer protocols that aren't opt-in for security, which is what Signal buys you.
It's rather a web app than a desktop application, isn't it?
It's not a desktop app, but the original requirement never stated that.
There's a desktop app for Windows. There's also a web app at https://messenger.com. You can disable your Facebook account and still use Messenger
For the love of crypto, I would like to see Signal and WhatsApp make proper desktop applications for all major platforms including Linux. Until they do so, Telegram will serve as an excellent competitor to remind them that good cryptography is not enough.
The Signal desktop-app stores all messages unencrypted on the filesystem: https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Desktop/issues/1017
Sure, but telegram doesn't even have a secret chat feature on desktop client.
I can't believe there still isn't a single usable e2e mobile + desktop chat client that won't drain your cell phone battery super quickly.
I can't believe there still isn't a single usable e2e mobile + desktop chat client that won't drain your cell phone battery super quickly.
> For the love of crypto,
The problem is that most people value convenience and speed over security and privacy. Telegram provides a very good trade off, much better than some other apps. If Signal were to be developed at the pace Telegram is, I would use it all the time, but it's not. For my use and likes, both Telegram and Wire are very good fits.
The problem is that most people value convenience and speed over security and privacy. Telegram provides a very good trade off, much better than some other apps. If Signal were to be developed at the pace Telegram is, I would use it all the time, but it's not. For my use and likes, both Telegram and Wire are very good fits.
> PSA: Telegram is dangerous snake oil
1. They don't claim to do end to end crypto unless you use the secret chats
2. The secret chats still aren't broken. Since 2013, I'd think at least one "crypto expert" (which all said a custom protocol was a bad idea) would have taken the effort to prove it by now.
3. Whatsapp claims to have better encryption, and they probably do, but it's 1) a lot less convenient and 2) unverifiable.
4. Telegram is open source. You can layer your own encryption on top of it if you care, and the clients' implementation is fully verifiable.
PSA: Whatsapp is dangerous snake oil--hidden source code and owned by a company with a terrible track record in terms of privacy.
1. They don't claim to do end to end crypto unless you use the secret chats
2. The secret chats still aren't broken. Since 2013, I'd think at least one "crypto expert" (which all said a custom protocol was a bad idea) would have taken the effort to prove it by now.
3. Whatsapp claims to have better encryption, and they probably do, but it's 1) a lot less convenient and 2) unverifiable.
4. Telegram is open source. You can layer your own encryption on top of it if you care, and the clients' implementation is fully verifiable.
PSA: Whatsapp is dangerous snake oil--hidden source code and owned by a company with a terrible track record in terms of privacy.
> 2. The secret chats still aren't broken. Since 2013, I'd think at least one "crypto expert" (which all said a custom protocol was a bad idea) would have taken the effort to prove it by now.
https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1177.pdf
https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1177.pdf
4. Open source, you say? Technically, yes. But in fact they love to abandon github repos while still releasing new versions. Take a look at iOS sources: https://github.com/peter-iakovlev/Telegram/
if you dont like whatsapp you can use Signal. it's the open source software that was integrated into whatsapp and is the basis of it's e2e encryption.
both are better options than telegram.
both are better options than telegram.
> if you dont like whatsapp you can use Signal
Yeah that doesn't work at all on my phone because it requires me to use Google Cloud Messaging (Google stuff on my phone is firewalled). You can't just connect to the Signal servers -- or your own for that matter -- and be done with it, you need to use Google servers.
Yeah that doesn't work at all on my phone because it requires me to use Google Cloud Messaging (Google stuff on my phone is firewalled). You can't just connect to the Signal servers -- or your own for that matter -- and be done with it, you need to use Google servers.
See this post also: https://moxie.org/blog/telegram-crypto-challenge/
It's ok i guess. Everyone had used whatsapp with no encryption at all before they implemented p2p.
I switched from skype to telegram because of its much smaller memory footprint. 400mb+ for skype, 63mb(current) for telegram.
I switched from skype to telegram because of its much smaller memory footprint. 400mb+ for skype, 63mb(current) for telegram.
I am not going to comment on the quality of telegram but whatsapp have been using top notch crypto for some time: https://whispersystems.org/blog/whatsapp-complete/
At least that's what they tell you. We can't know for sure because it's closed-source.
WhatsApp is as closed as the version of Telegram you download from the (App|Play) Store.
Before you say "but I can compile it myself", think of how many people will ever bother to do that.
Before you say "but I can compile it myself", think of how many people will ever bother to do that.
You can download it from F-Droid where they will compile it from the source for you. Yes, only very few people will use that version, too. But with that logic there isn't any reason for open-source at all.
Same as every other app including Signal. For the record, not advocating using Telegram over Signal.
One would do in order to unearth any backdoors. In case of WhatsApp, that would be more difficult.
No, we can easily know for sure, despite the fact that it's closed source.
How?
Sorry, I don't understand your question.
How can you know for sure?
By looking at the code.
but it's closed-source, so we can't do that
`tptacek is being obtuse, but it really is pretty straightforward: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decompiler
It's a forward tick: 'tptacek. We're not writing Lisp macros. :)
You understand how frustrating it is for open source advocates to hear that normal users will never look at source code and so there's no practical difference for them between closed source and open source since it's all opaque to them anyways?
That's how literally every security person feels about the argument that closed-source software is unknowable.
We don't need decompilers or special tools to read closed-source applications. Almost all of them --- very much including the Signal-based messengers --- are built with tools that produce straightforward easy to follow assembly code.
That's how literally every security person feels about the argument that closed-source software is unknowable.
We don't need decompilers or special tools to read closed-source applications. Almost all of them --- very much including the Signal-based messengers --- are built with tools that produce straightforward easy to follow assembly code.
So there's no practical difference for you in understanding algorithms between assembly and higher-level source code?
According to https://www.eff.org/node/82654
whatsapp 6 out of 7
telegram(in secret chat) 7 out of 7
So i am not going to comment on the quality of whatsapp, because their sources are closed.
whatsapp 6 out of 7
telegram(in secret chat) 7 out of 7
So i am not going to comment on the quality of whatsapp, because their sources are closed.
But I think you need to mention by default telegram is 4 out of 7, by default whatsapp is 6 out of 7 if you want to compare that kind of thing.
Most people are not going to use the secret chat.
Most people are not going to use the secret chat.
Is anyone so incapable that they would not know how to enable the secure features?
Most people don't care about secret chat. This is for people who care. Granted, they don't have secret chat on Desktop which makes the whole app useless in general unless you only use phones for communication.
Most people don't care about secret chat. This is for people who care. Granted, they don't have secret chat on Desktop which makes the whole app useless in general unless you only use phones for communication.
>Most people are not going to use the secret chat.
This is a reason i said "It's ok" in my original comment. Few people need encryption in day to day communication, but if you need it telegram is better.
This is a reason i said "It's ok" in my original comment. Few people need encryption in day to day communication, but if you need it telegram is better.
Completely out of date.
Try this one: https://www.securemessagingapps.com
Recommends Signal and (with caveats) Threema and Wire.
Try this one: https://www.securemessagingapps.com
Recommends Signal and (with caveats) Threema and Wire.
This should be the top reply. I thought this was common knowledge on HN?
It is, but understand that not everybody cares too much about privacy, and Telegram is good--usually reliable, nice apps on all platforms, synced chats, almost limitless file storage, etc.
That may be true, but Signal offers almost an equal value proposition (unless I've missed something amazing about Telegram) whilst remaining the better option.
I know too well that not enough people care about privacy, sadly.
I know too well that not enough people care about privacy, sadly.
I think plenty of people care about privacy, which is probably why they don't want to use Facebook's acquired messenger product but rather use something independent and open source.
Facebook's acquired messenger product uses Signal Protocol for end-to-end encryption. From a security perspective, WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger are materially, categorically more secure than Telegram.
Hi, we've had this discussion before. You say the crypto is better, which is true, I say it's unverifiable and it has a company behind it with a bad track record for privacy, which is also true. Still we can't agree on which one to use.
Yes, but not to the point of paranoia. While I understand people's sentiment about p-2-p encryption, some people really do overreact about the lack of it in Telegram atm.
If anybody really wants to hack you (you exatly) - p-2-p ecryption won't stop them, this is not some kind of absolute defence.
And if you are worried about FSB readin your messages - trust me, they don't, unless you are under suspection already. No organisation in Russian history ever worked this way, only selectively.
If anybody really wants to hack you (you exatly) - p-2-p ecryption won't stop them, this is not some kind of absolute defence.
And if you are worried about FSB readin your messages - trust me, they don't, unless you are under suspection already. No organisation in Russian history ever worked this way, only selectively.
Interesting because the friend who told me about Telegram said it was more secure other messengers.
Does anybody know how many users are on Telegram and who owns them? Can you invest in them?
Does anybody know how many users are on Telegram and who owns them? Can you invest in them?
That's because it's how they sell themselves. From their homepage:
> Telegram is a cloud-based mobile and desktop messaging app with a focus on security and speed.
Unfortunately, it tricks a lot of people.
> Telegram is a cloud-based mobile and desktop messaging app with a focus on security and speed.
Unfortunately, it tricks a lot of people.
Founded by Russian founder of VKontakte, Pavel Durov. I believe they're now headquartered in Germany.
See Wikipedia and https://www.securemessagingapps.com
See Wikipedia and https://www.securemessagingapps.com
Pavel Durov is the founder (after he left Russia).
As for numbers: http://www.businessofapps.com/telegram-statistics-and-revenu...
https://telegram.org/blog/100-million https://telegram.org/blog/15-billion
As for numbers: http://www.businessofapps.com/telegram-statistics-and-revenu...
https://telegram.org/blog/100-million https://telegram.org/blog/15-billion
I keep seeing this as a reason not to use Telegram, but here is what I want to know:
As a user who doesn't care about my chats being 100% encrypted, but does want the convenience of multi-platform messaging, is Telegram a better alternative to Facebook Messenger, Google Hangouts or Whatsapp? My messages on Telegram may not be encrypted, but are they actively used to siphon information from my messages to contribute to my non-anonymized (or poorly anonymized) advertiser profile, and freely passed or sold to third-parties as they are with those platforms?
I've only seen hardline stances on "If you don't care about privacy, Telegram is great!" or "If you care about privacy, Telegram is awful garbage". What about the grey area in the middle? Where does it fit?
As a user who doesn't care about my chats being 100% encrypted, but does want the convenience of multi-platform messaging, is Telegram a better alternative to Facebook Messenger, Google Hangouts or Whatsapp? My messages on Telegram may not be encrypted, but are they actively used to siphon information from my messages to contribute to my non-anonymized (or poorly anonymized) advertiser profile, and freely passed or sold to third-parties as they are with those platforms?
I've only seen hardline stances on "If you don't care about privacy, Telegram is great!" or "If you care about privacy, Telegram is awful garbage". What about the grey area in the middle? Where does it fit?
Things I noticed so far:
- Dark Skin (still waiting for Slack doing it)
- It's faster than the MAS version
- It's not possible to collapse the chat list anymore
- The desktop app is responsive, though, collapsing the whole sidebar into a hamburger menu
- Replying to messages is buried in a context menu, in the MAS version one could simply double click a message
- They created a giant group for themes. Once 4chan joins there, things will go very bad
- Dark Skin (still waiting for Slack doing it)
- It's faster than the MAS version
- It's not possible to collapse the chat list anymore
- The desktop app is responsive, though, collapsing the whole sidebar into a hamburger menu
- Replying to messages is buried in a context menu, in the MAS version one could simply double click a message
- They created a giant group for themes. Once 4chan joins there, things will go very bad
Eh, there's a big community of 4chan groups already (at least for specific boards, like a variety of /g/ groups for technology discussion). I wouldn't say they're any worse than the alternatives (the Let's Talk Programming group is about the same in posting quality as the /g/ groups, if not slightly lower).
>Dark Skin (still waiting for Slack doing it)
Any number of any skins, actually. Themes.
Any number of any skins, actually. Themes.
Indeed. Sorry for being unclear.
https://get.slack.help/hc/en-us/articles/205166337-Customize...
Or am I misunderstanding you?
Or am I misunderstanding you?
This is useful, but only applies to the sidebar theme. Slack doesn't currently support styling the main window.
That just colors the sidebar.
Congratulations to the team! The native desktop apps have been top notch in user experience, speed and stability. Among messaging apps, Telegram has been my favorite for some years. Its development speed and feature introductions, at least in my knowledge, are unparalleled.
I've always liked the multi-device sync feature in Telegram and can't imagine using an app without that. My main concerns have been the home grown crypto and that normal chats are not end-to-end encrypted (only secret chats are). So I've been trying Wire [1] for a while, which provides both multi-device sync, multi-OS apps and end-to-end encrypted chats by default (there is no non-E2E chat). But it needs some more time to become much better (it's comparatively quite slow to startup and sync messages). Unfortunately, for all the fame that Signal [2] has on crypto and end-to-end encryption, it's the slowest in feature development among these apps.
[1]: https://wire.com
[2]: https://whispersystems.org
I've always liked the multi-device sync feature in Telegram and can't imagine using an app without that. My main concerns have been the home grown crypto and that normal chats are not end-to-end encrypted (only secret chats are). So I've been trying Wire [1] for a while, which provides both multi-device sync, multi-OS apps and end-to-end encrypted chats by default (there is no non-E2E chat). But it needs some more time to become much better (it's comparatively quite slow to startup and sync messages). Unfortunately, for all the fame that Signal [2] has on crypto and end-to-end encryption, it's the slowest in feature development among these apps.
[1]: https://wire.com
[2]: https://whispersystems.org
Some of my friends are moving from Skype to Discord, but it seems to be a plethora of new IM clients popping up all the time.
From what I can see Telegram doesn't have VoIP, which could be a deal breaker for some. Are there other advantages with Telegram compared to Discord that makes up for the lack of voice?
From what I can see Telegram doesn't have VoIP, which could be a deal breaker for some. Are there other advantages with Telegram compared to Discord that makes up for the lack of voice?
Telegram never planned implementing VoIP, as far as I remember, only voice messages.
The main reasons it's so popular (with some users, 100+ mil of them) - bots (telegram has open api, and bt platform https://telegram.org/blog/bot-revolution) and channels. In Russia - telegram channels is now a new type of media, very popular with independent journalists, bloggers etc.
The main reasons it's so popular (with some users, 100+ mil of them) - bots (telegram has open api, and bt platform https://telegram.org/blog/bot-revolution) and channels. In Russia - telegram channels is now a new type of media, very popular with independent journalists, bloggers etc.
Seems odd that such a new IM app wouldn't leave room for voip.
Everyone's looking for a decent replacement for Skype, and Hangouts ain't it.
Everyone's looking for a decent replacement for Skype, and Hangouts ain't it.
I wonder how difficult it would be to add voice chats using a custom client. I've thought about doing some experiments extending the feature list (e.g. calls, different encryption layers, etc.) by forking an existing client and using some hacks to send custom data, but I don't have the time to try it at the moment.
Well, 3rd party client can use Telegram protocol for texting etc, and Jingle for VoIP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingle_(protocol)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingle_(protocol)
https://riot.im it's open source, encrypted, supports VoIP and video calling. And it has a room system just like discord.
No signup and no email required.
No signup and no email required.
Now if only everyone that I know used Telegram.
Everyone I want to talk to uses Telegram, and those who didn't (a few years ago) I convinced. "You want me to install Skype/Whatsapp/something, but why should I rather than you?"
It helped that most people saw the advantages that Telegram had, especially back then (before whatsapp cloned everything). Not to say that Telegram didn't clone whatsapp to a large degree, but the introduction of telegram definitely made the market innovative again.
It helped that most people saw the advantages that Telegram had, especially back then (before whatsapp cloned everything). Not to say that Telegram didn't clone whatsapp to a large degree, but the introduction of telegram definitely made the market innovative again.
The problem is that I already have Whatsapp installed, having been an early-adopter. I can't get my family onto Telegram (high signal) and I can't get my friends onto Discord (high noise). Whatsapp is dreadful for both.
Well, almost everyone here in Iran uses Telegram. They estimate tens of millions of users, which is practically everyone with a smartphone. It’s channels are extremely popular too. They’re a major main source of content and news for a lot of users.
It's so stupid that I can't read public channels without providing a valid phone number. I don't need any secrecy, just want to read damn blog posts!
I use Telegram with my geek friends. Works.
Im not sure what 'geeks' you are talking about (The terminology is always confusing. But my friends (and me) refuse Telegram because of the terrible security and privacy.
My friends are geeks and my family got Telegram as well now. Works!
Journalists used to use telegram to communicate with Jihadis in Syria/Iraq/Egypt but not anymore because it was highly suspected Russia had access to the conversations. Works?
Got any proof?
There appear to be two Telegram apps on Mac App Store: Telegram Desktop 0.10.20 and Telegram 2.30. I guess neither is the same as this one?
How can it be at 1.0 and still have not implemented secret chats?
Because it was never planned that would be a feature of the desktop application.
Um, secret chats have been there for a long time.
It doesn't seem so: https://github.com/telegramdesktop/tdesktop/issues/871
To clarify: secret chats have been present on Telegram as a platform for a long time. The desktop client doesn't seem to support them though.
This often leads to people saying things like "Telegram doesn't have end-to-end encryption". Really, what they mean is that it's not the default and isn't on all platforms. Most people can use it if they want to though because it's available on all major mobile OSes.
This often leads to people saying things like "Telegram doesn't have end-to-end encryption". Really, what they mean is that it's not the default and isn't on all platforms. Most people can use it if they want to though because it's available on all major mobile OSes.
What is this "Desktop Client", i don't get it -_-
I use the Telegram app on my OSX Laptop, and i use Secret chats. They seem identical to my Android secret chats. What am i missing?
I use the Telegram app on my OSX Laptop, and i use Secret chats. They seem identical to my Android secret chats. What am i missing?
Telegram desktop [1] aka "tdesktop" is the official telegram desktop client, it's based on Qt and it's cross platform (Windows, GNU/Linux, OS X). What you have been using must be "Telegram for OS X" [2], a different application entirely, which supports only OS X obviously. IIRC tdesktop didn't support OS X initially.
[1]: https://github.com/telegramdesktop/tdesktop [2]: https://github.com/overtake/telegram
[1]: https://github.com/telegramdesktop/tdesktop [2]: https://github.com/overtake/telegram
Interesting, thanks for the clarification! Seeing as OSX has secret chats, i may as well stick with it heh.
The desktop version has no encryption? Seriously, why should i use something like this in 2017?
Somewhat strangely, that feature is missing from the desktop version.
https://medium.freecodecamp.com/why-i-asked-my-friends-to-st...
To those who think privacy does not matter : http://www.ted.com/talks/glenn_greenwald_why_privacy_matters
To those who think privacy does not matter : http://www.ted.com/talks/glenn_greenwald_why_privacy_matters
I still find this native client is the best: https://macos.telegram.org/. It is wicked fast vs. QT version.
I agree. I've installed Telegram Desktop, played with it, and revert to the native macOS client a few hours later. I don't care about animations at all or even the themes. I also didn't like the fact that the icon keeps jumping when receiving new messages. The macOS version works better for my personal preference.
Telegram is one of the best solutions thanks to its bots and channels.
Did they actually include a functional contact list this time? That's why I ditched it like a hot potato each time they had an update and I tried it.
NOPE. Still the same useless contact list. Even AOL Instant Messenger, 20+ years old, manages to get this right.
I really like Telegram but the desktop version doesn't have security channels, which I think, nowadays, are escencial.
I use WhatsApp currently and so does everyone I know, is it worth switching and trying to convince other people to use it?
Not until Telegram also adopts end-to-end encryption by default, as WhatsApp has done.
I'm not sure they even have a real reason for not doing it yet. At this point there are at least a couple other open source protocols that work like Signal but have nothing to do with Signal and Open Whisper Systems, that they could adopt. So even if they hate OWS for criticizing them in the past, that's not a reason not to adopt the alternatives at this point.
I'd probably be content if they even take one of those and fork it and customize it for their own purposes, as long as their "math Ph.Ds" don't completely break the crypto again.
I'm not sure they even have a real reason for not doing it yet. At this point there are at least a couple other open source protocols that work like Signal but have nothing to do with Signal and Open Whisper Systems, that they could adopt. So even if they hate OWS for criticizing them in the past, that's not a reason not to adopt the alternatives at this point.
I'd probably be content if they even take one of those and fork it and customize it for their own purposes, as long as their "math Ph.Ds" don't completely break the crypto again.
Of course they have a real reason: message sync. Telegram works on your PC, in your browser, on your phone, on your tablet, in your raspberry pi tty... all with the same messages synced everywhere, which you wouldn't be able to get with end2end crypto. Sure, Whatsapp kinda does it with the web/desktop clients, but it's a horrible hack requiring your phone to be on and connected all the time...
How is it related?
AFAIK Signal has sync between desktop and mobile doesn't have to be constantly on to use the desktop client
Signal does have sync, but it works exactly the same way as Whatsapp's does, requiring your phone to be on and connected
Telegram's secret chats are also client-specific and not synced, and I have no idea how it would even be possible to have e2e chats synced on multiple devices without having a "main" device that's doing the actual crypto or sharing the secret key
Telegram's secret chats are also client-specific and not synced, and I have no idea how it would even be possible to have e2e chats synced on multiple devices without having a "main" device that's doing the actual crypto or sharing the secret key
If you're interested in learning how to implement end-to-end chats with multiple devices, checkout out Wire security whitepaper (https://wire.com/resource/Wire%20Security%20Whitepaper/downl...) for one way of doing it.
Hopefully, OpenWhisperSystems will release documentation about their implementation in Signal (note: it doesn't require phone, unlike WhatsApp)
Hopefully, OpenWhisperSystems will release documentation about their implementation in Signal (note: it doesn't require phone, unlike WhatsApp)
Thanks! Will definitely read this.
I got fooled by Signal's requirement of a phone for the activation and thought it was also required for normal usage, I guess that's better than Whatsapp, though being able to register and use it without a phone at all would be even better (even Telegram doesn't do this though, IIRC it requires a phone number)
I got fooled by Signal's requirement of a phone for the activation and thought it was also required for normal usage, I guess that's better than Whatsapp, though being able to register and use it without a phone at all would be even better (even Telegram doesn't do this though, IIRC it requires a phone number)
You are totally wrong. The phone number aspect has absolutely nothing to do with the e2e client problem.
Its possible to have e2e on multiple clients, with or without a phone number attached to it. There are multiple chat clients that can do it, some with, some without phone number. Signal requires phone number and does it, Wire and Riot do it without a phone number.
Telegram just don't actually care about security or privacy. Unencrypted defaults, all conversation saved on the server, even if you use their 'roll your own' crypt secret chats you lose most of the functionality that actually go people to use Telegram in the first place.
Telegram essentially has no usable e2e crypto to speak off. Secret chats are a usability and security nightmare.
People should use Riot (Matrix) or Wire. Those are much better.
Its possible to have e2e on multiple clients, with or without a phone number attached to it. There are multiple chat clients that can do it, some with, some without phone number. Signal requires phone number and does it, Wire and Riot do it without a phone number.
Telegram just don't actually care about security or privacy. Unencrypted defaults, all conversation saved on the server, even if you use their 'roll your own' crypt secret chats you lose most of the functionality that actually go people to use Telegram in the first place.
Telegram essentially has no usable e2e crypto to speak off. Secret chats are a usability and security nightmare.
People should use Riot (Matrix) or Wire. Those are much better.
> Signal does have sync, but it works exactly the same way as Whatsapp's does, requiring your phone to be on and connected
It doesn't. The phone is only needed for initial setup.
It doesn't. The phone is only needed for initial setup.
Yes, totally worth it.
Not there yet privacy-wise as others point out, but at least you get an open API and the ability to use your own clients.
Not there yet privacy-wise as others point out, but at least you get an open API and the ability to use your own clients.
[deleted]
Congrats for the release but they really need to fix the mobile notifications when using the desktop client [1]
[1] - https://github.com/telegramdesktop/tdesktop/issues/277
[1] - https://github.com/telegramdesktop/tdesktop/issues/277
Can I connect it to Skype/Facebook/IRC?
IRC: kind of, you can have a bot that joins a Telegram group and the IRC channel and forwards messages. It's getting more and more common.
Other than bots, the client is really a Telegram client, not something like Pidgin.
Personally I don't mind, since everyone's on Telegram. I actually prefer to have a client that's excellent with one network rather than a client that does quite well with many networks. Having used Pidgin and other multi-network clients in the past, they are always second rate compared to the official client. And with bots (irc to telegram bot; gmail to telegram bot; etc.) all I need is the Telegram client.
As for Skype, how do you want to connect it? Microsoft doesn't allow it, and neither would Whatsapp. Telegram on the other hand has no problem if you make a custom client...
Other than bots, the client is really a Telegram client, not something like Pidgin.
Personally I don't mind, since everyone's on Telegram. I actually prefer to have a client that's excellent with one network rather than a client that does quite well with many networks. Having used Pidgin and other multi-network clients in the past, they are always second rate compared to the official client. And with bots (irc to telegram bot; gmail to telegram bot; etc.) all I need is the Telegram client.
As for Skype, how do you want to connect it? Microsoft doesn't allow it, and neither would Whatsapp. Telegram on the other hand has no problem if you make a custom client...
Well, Skype has recently introduced a bot API ([1]), integrable with the azure bot framework thingy ([2]) that also works with Telegram/Slack/FB Messenger/MS Teams, so I guess (though I haven't looked into it, let alone tried) you could probably make a gateway between all of those
[1]: https://www.skype.com/en/developer/ [2]: https://dev.botframework.com/
[1]: https://www.skype.com/en/developer/ [2]: https://dev.botframework.com/
> Personally I don't mind, since everyone's on Telegram.
I don't know a single person who is on Telegram. My friends have not even heard of it despite the fact that they all talk online and a good percentage of them are developers. Why would I start using it if no one I know uses it?
I don't know a single person who is on Telegram. My friends have not even heard of it despite the fact that they all talk online and a good percentage of them are developers. Why would I start using it if no one I know uses it?
Because that's how it gets started.
Bad example: I knew nobody on Google+ but I made some new friends. The network died again, or at least I stopped using it after a year and a half or something, so it's a bad example in that it didn't work out in the end, but yeah that's how things get started. Why do you think the first million people got Whatsapp? If you don't try something new and convince at least one other person to use it, how would things ever change?
Bad example: I knew nobody on Google+ but I made some new friends. The network died again, or at least I stopped using it after a year and a half or something, so it's a bad example in that it didn't work out in the end, but yeah that's how things get started. Why do you think the first million people got Whatsapp? If you don't try something new and convince at least one other person to use it, how would things ever change?
Why would I want to use telegram in the first place?
1. It's not Facebook's
2. The clients are open source (for me that's a moral reason)
3. Secret chats are verifiably encrypted
4. You can make your own client if you want, causing:
4.1. Someone used a custom client (tgcli) to create a backup feature, which I extended to make html exports like MSN had (quite a future-proof and readable format). This prevents lock-in.
4.2. You are much less restricted in your choice of operating system, given you or someone else takes the effort of porting or writing a client.
5. The existing desktop client is native and doesn't require your phone to be turned on and have data active.
6. The clients have lots of features like custom themes, sending large files, setting up a username which can be linked to publicly, creating broadcast channels, pinned chats, etc. I'm not sure how much of this whatsapp implemented by now. It's true that Telegram also copied other products a lot, but they added lots of features that competitors didn't have, but nowadays they do (it made the market more innovative again).
I'm also not saying everyone should move to Telegram. Some monopolies are better than others (some are owned by Facebook & other things I just mentioned) but all monopolies are bad.
Additionally Whatsapp has some advantages like calling and knowing what the profit model is. The latter is actually my greatest worry about Telegram, but everything considered, Telegram is the best thing currently available in my opinion.
2. The clients are open source (for me that's a moral reason)
3. Secret chats are verifiably encrypted
4. You can make your own client if you want, causing:
4.1. Someone used a custom client (tgcli) to create a backup feature, which I extended to make html exports like MSN had (quite a future-proof and readable format). This prevents lock-in.
4.2. You are much less restricted in your choice of operating system, given you or someone else takes the effort of porting or writing a client.
5. The existing desktop client is native and doesn't require your phone to be turned on and have data active.
6. The clients have lots of features like custom themes, sending large files, setting up a username which can be linked to publicly, creating broadcast channels, pinned chats, etc. I'm not sure how much of this whatsapp implemented by now. It's true that Telegram also copied other products a lot, but they added lots of features that competitors didn't have, but nowadays they do (it made the market more innovative again).
I'm also not saying everyone should move to Telegram. Some monopolies are better than others (some are owned by Facebook & other things I just mentioned) but all monopolies are bad.
Additionally Whatsapp has some advantages like calling and knowing what the profit model is. The latter is actually my greatest worry about Telegram, but everything considered, Telegram is the best thing currently available in my opinion.
Good point. Do you have strategies which you used to convince your friends to start using Telegram?
No
It's still nowhere near as smooth as the native macOS app :(
EDIT: smiley
EDIT: smiley