Telegram Ad Platform(promote.telegram.org)
promote.telegram.org
Telegram Ad Platform
https://promote.telegram.org/
255 comments
> so what (technically) is stopping a true E2E P2P platform?
The fact that nobody really wants a true p2p platform: you don't want to lose all your stuff if you lose the device. It is clear that federated services like email are superior for most users bar some real hardnuts mindfixed on privacy.
The fact that nobody really wants a true p2p platform: you don't want to lose all your stuff if you lose the device. It is clear that federated services like email are superior for most users bar some real hardnuts mindfixed on privacy.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> The fact that nobody really wants a true p2p platform: you don't want to lose all your stuff if you lose the device.
Why not provide encrypted backups to a personal cloud storage service? Even WhatsApp does it these days.
Why not provide encrypted backups to a personal cloud storage service? Even WhatsApp does it these days.
I don't mind you doing it and showing us how it should be done.
Ah, btw, how will a true p2p platform work on iOS? What entity will send you push notifications when there are messages for your device?
Ah, btw, how will a true p2p platform work on iOS? What entity will send you push notifications when there are messages for your device?
End-to-end encrypted backups? Like this, for example (I personally don't trust the HSMs/password scheme, but it's optional): https://engineering.fb.com/2021/09/10/security/whatsapp-e2ee...
True P2P on iOS: No idea, I merely claimed that a lack of backup options is not the reason we don't have it.
True P2P on iOS: No idea, I merely claimed that a lack of backup options is not the reason we don't have it.
It's not just the lack of backups. It's a world of constant pain and worry about your only device, security keys, and safe storage and transfer of your data. Forgot password? Get new account. Lost a key? Get new account. Want to open your messages in a browser from a desktop computer? Welcome to a world of pain. Your device switched off? Then nobody can send you messages, because in 'true p2p' there are no relay servers who would store the data, waiting for you to connect.
In practice, nobody wants any of that. The vast majority of users are perfectly happy (and for the right reasons) with federated and centralised services like email or WhatsApp/etc.
In practice, nobody wants any of that. The vast majority of users are perfectly happy (and for the right reasons) with federated and centralised services like email or WhatsApp/etc.
You are welcome to start this service at any time. It is a colossal technical undertaking. Good luck!
Matrix is working on a P2P system. Last update that I am aware of is the one here, but there are likely newer updates:
https://matrix.org/blog/2020/06/02/introducing-p-2-p-matrix/
Personally, I would like to use Briar on my Tailscale network, but the lack of Briar desktop app and the need to build custom Briar app to support Tailscale interface is a blocker. Or, a self-hosted Signal app.
https://matrix.org/blog/2020/06/02/introducing-p-2-p-matrix/
Personally, I would like to use Briar on my Tailscale network, but the lack of Briar desktop app and the need to build custom Briar app to support Tailscale interface is a blocker. Or, a self-hosted Signal app.
Matrix is, unfortunately, a UX catastrophe compared to Telegram.
Telegram has the best messaging app by UX and it's not even close. It's fast, reliable and it just works.
Try getting your mother to use Matrix. Verifying sessions of chat participants is such a disgusting user experience I wonder if they employ /any/ graphic or UX designers.
Telegram has the best messaging app by UX and it's not even close. It's fast, reliable and it just works.
Try getting your mother to use Matrix. Verifying sessions of chat participants is such a disgusting user experience I wonder if they employ /any/ graphic or UX designers.
I agree. Telegram's UX is unparalleled.
Coming to Matrix, the Element Web/Desktop app is ugly and has bad UI/UX. Its unintuitive to use. Fortunately, you have tons of choices with Matrix. Cinny on desktop has a very neat and clean UX.
On Android, the Element app is good enough, but if not Fluffychat feels just like WhatsApp.
Coming to Matrix, the Element Web/Desktop app is ugly and has bad UI/UX. Its unintuitive to use. Fortunately, you have tons of choices with Matrix. Cinny on desktop has a very neat and clean UX.
On Android, the Element app is good enough, but if not Fluffychat feels just like WhatsApp.
Matrix is an open protocol and anyone's welcome to build a front-end, inspired by Telegram, that your mother would be happy using.
Perhaps you meant the Element client?
Perhaps you meant the Element client?
I'd wager you cannot build a Telegram-tier frontend using Matrix technology. Element is evidence of that.
Clearly there's an axis with security on one side and convenience on the other. Tilting fully to either side results in a terrible experience. For me, Telegram strikes the perfect balance. Secure chats have fantastic privacy, while the UX isn't totally garbage. The trade-off is that chats are non-E2EE by default.
Signal's has the axis tilted all the way to the "security" end, so that the product is unusable if you aren't a technical expert already.
Could your mother figure out how to encrypt an email message using GnuPG? Absolutely not a chance.
Could she figure out how to send a message on ProtonMail that encrypts it client-side for her? Probably.
Signal is GnuPG. Telegram is ProtonMail.
Clearly there's an axis with security on one side and convenience on the other. Tilting fully to either side results in a terrible experience. For me, Telegram strikes the perfect balance. Secure chats have fantastic privacy, while the UX isn't totally garbage. The trade-off is that chats are non-E2EE by default.
Signal's has the axis tilted all the way to the "security" end, so that the product is unusable if you aren't a technical expert already.
Could your mother figure out how to encrypt an email message using GnuPG? Absolutely not a chance.
Could she figure out how to send a message on ProtonMail that encrypts it client-side for her? Probably.
Signal is GnuPG. Telegram is ProtonMail.
> Signal's has the axis tilted all the way to the "security" end, so that the product is unusable if you aren't a technical expert already.
Wow, I really disagree with this statement.
> Could your mother figure out how to encrypt an email message using GnuPG? Absolutely not a chance. [...] Signal is GnuPG.
My parents are not technical people, yet they can use Signal. My siblings as well. I think the UX is approximately on par with WhatsApp (when I was using it).
They have done a great job when it comes to UX. Ultimately I would like to push them towards Matrix, but the UX is not here yet for most clients. Fluffychat comes close to it, unfortunately I'm experiencing issues logging in with my account (timeouts), so I can't recommend it yet.
Wow, I really disagree with this statement.
> Could your mother figure out how to encrypt an email message using GnuPG? Absolutely not a chance. [...] Signal is GnuPG.
My parents are not technical people, yet they can use Signal. My siblings as well. I think the UX is approximately on par with WhatsApp (when I was using it).
They have done a great job when it comes to UX. Ultimately I would like to push them towards Matrix, but the UX is not here yet for most clients. Fluffychat comes close to it, unfortunately I'm experiencing issues logging in with my account (timeouts), so I can't recommend it yet.
> Signal's has the axis tilted all the way to the "security" end, so that the product is unusable if you aren't a technical expert already.
Sorry, just to confirm: are you saying Signal has worse UX than Element?
Sorry, just to confirm: are you saying Signal has worse UX than Element?
> Signal's has the axis tilted all the way to the "security" end, so that the product is unusable if you aren't a technical expert already.
How so?
What's wrong with Element's UX? It's improved an awful lot lately.
How so?
What's wrong with Element's UX? It's improved an awful lot lately.
It's slow, very resource intensive on desktop, practically unusable on mobile, you sometimes can't join rooms and the client tells you some weird obscure Matrix error, you sometimes can't leave rooms, the moderations tools are quite poor, etc. etc. etc.
This is the kind of gotcha that is not a real argument, just a way to say that the mediocrity of the Matrix (or Element, or Potato, whatever you wanna call it) is okay so no progress is ever made.
Matrix is not a protocol, it's a product. Its openness is more like a public API to a product developed by one organization.
Disclosure: I work with real open protocols.
Disclosure: I work with real open protocols.
Could you define "real open protocol" vs "public API"?
If the former entails an adopted RFC, isn't it common practice to prove need via a product before proposing a standard?
Asking because I'm at work on a safer, decentralized protocol for email, TMTP.
If the former entails an adopted RFC, isn't it common practice to prove need via a product before proposing a standard?
Asking because I'm at work on a safer, decentralized protocol for email, TMTP.
Real open protocols are ones not coming from a single vendor / not controlled by a single entity. XMPP and email are open protocols, Matrix, Mattermost and RocketChat are not.
Didn't XMPP originate with a single vendor? And JMAP? Didn't SMTP also originate in the field?
Are you saying that the Matrix authors won't submit an RFC?
Are you saying that the Matrix authors won't submit an RFC?
Speaking as Matrix project lead: we'd love to submit an RFC (or W3C proposal) once Matrix has sufficiently stabilised. Right now it's moving very fast though (e.g. we're about to totally change the sync API so that it's O(1) rather than O(N) with number of conversations).
In terms of contributions to the Matrix spec; from a quick eyeball at https://spec.matrix.org/unstable/proposals/, there are 95 different authors, of which 31 work for Element (the company formed by the original team who created Matrix). Or to slice it another way, there are 498 spec change proposals there, of which 358 were written by folks at Element (so 70%). Meanwhile the protocol itself is defined by the independent and neutral Matrix.org Foundation non-profit (https://matrix.org/foundation).
In other words, accusations that Matrix is entirely defined or controlled by Element are untrue - by the time we created Element there was already significant contribution from the wider community, and these days there are loads of other individuals and companies like Beeper, Famedly and even Ericsson contributing to the spec.
Edit: oh, and Rocket.chat is adopting Matrix too, which refutes the GP comment even more...
In terms of contributions to the Matrix spec; from a quick eyeball at https://spec.matrix.org/unstable/proposals/, there are 95 different authors, of which 31 work for Element (the company formed by the original team who created Matrix). Or to slice it another way, there are 498 spec change proposals there, of which 358 were written by folks at Element (so 70%). Meanwhile the protocol itself is defined by the independent and neutral Matrix.org Foundation non-profit (https://matrix.org/foundation).
In other words, accusations that Matrix is entirely defined or controlled by Element are untrue - by the time we created Element there was already significant contribution from the wider community, and these days there are loads of other individuals and companies like Beeper, Famedly and even Ericsson contributing to the spec.
Edit: oh, and Rocket.chat is adopting Matrix too, which refutes the GP comment even more...
We all know that 'independent matrix foundation' will never oppose the will of the leading vendor. Don't tell me about how you agree to everything in your wonderful community, tell me how you resolve conflicts?
You and your company has all the leverage and no sane independent developer will invest in your protocol because he'll always have to play the catch up game.
You and your company has all the leverage and no sane independent developer will invest in your protocol because he'll always have to play the catch up game.
An example of resolving conflicts is something like MSC2962 (https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/pull/2962) and MSC3216 (https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/pull/3216). Two proposals to solve the same problem, different ways. The first one was written by me; the second one was written by joepie91, who's a completely independent community member. Doesn't get much more of a direct conflict than this.
So, to resolve it, the spec core team (which is a mix of element employees and community members) went through the two proposals to compare them and concluded that joepie91's approach is better. So we're about to kill off MSC2962 and merge MSC3216 into the spec instead.
Please stop with all the disinformation - it'd be way more constructive to invest your energy into improving XMPP than trying to make Matrix out to be evil.
So, to resolve it, the spec core team (which is a mix of element employees and community members) went through the two proposals to compare them and concluded that joepie91's approach is better. So we're about to kill off MSC2962 and merge MSC3216 into the spec instead.
Please stop with all the disinformation - it'd be way more constructive to invest your energy into improving XMPP than trying to make Matrix out to be evil.
What you cite is not a conflict. It is a mild disagreement about the development of new features. A real conflict is when you have different entities with different implementations, and diverging views on how to develop the protocol, and the stake for the losing party is to abandon their investment in their existing implementation and starting over from scratch.
However, I already have the answer on how you plan to deal with such conflicts, you've said it yourself [1]. I'll quote:
> The idea on Matrix is that you say "Hi, I talk Matrix CS API 0.4" and be done with it - and you end up with much more social pressure to keep up to date with the current latest spec, because otherwise you are simply falling behind
If we say it in a less courteous manner, "Once we introduce changes, your independent implementation will be cut off from our network, and if you'll need several more months to implement changes, well, tough luck".
You see, I'm not saying Matrix is evil. It's a rather developed product, just like Mattermost or Flock. But a federated protocol it is not. Please stop advertising as such, and I'll have nothing to say about it.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19421978
However, I already have the answer on how you plan to deal with such conflicts, you've said it yourself [1]. I'll quote:
> The idea on Matrix is that you say "Hi, I talk Matrix CS API 0.4" and be done with it - and you end up with much more social pressure to keep up to date with the current latest spec, because otherwise you are simply falling behind
If we say it in a less courteous manner, "Once we introduce changes, your independent implementation will be cut off from our network, and if you'll need several more months to implement changes, well, tough luck".
You see, I'm not saying Matrix is evil. It's a rather developed product, just like Mattermost or Flock. But a federated protocol it is not. Please stop advertising as such, and I'll have nothing to say about it.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19421978
Have you told this to the German Army and the French Police?
Because they seem to like it and, based on my experience with the military being able to run it independently is a major consideration for them even for smaller systems.
Because they seem to like it and, based on my experience with the military being able to run it independently is a major consideration for them even for smaller systems.
So what? Selling to such organizations tells more about the salesmen skills than actual merits of a product. For example, a lot of bigger and even more important organizations use Slack or Microsoft Teams, because a product they are sold works and does what they need.
On-premise software is nothing new. But the fact that some software can run on-premise and can interoperate between instances does not mean that it is a protocol. Mattermost can do that, is it a federated protocol too?
On-premise software is nothing new. But the fact that some software can run on-premise and can interoperate between instances does not mean that it is a protocol. Mattermost can do that, is it a federated protocol too?
Is it federated or P2P? I don't think I can message someone on Matrix without an account on someone's federated server.
just read the article at the link...
There are many P2P chat/instant message platforms but they are very niche.
For example: https://cabal.chat/
There isn't a way to monetize an open P2P protocol, or even a "captive user base" to sell to VCs for a cash exit so not a lot of development has been done on that area. (And I would be highly skeptical of any "blockchain" P2P Chat proposal)
For example: https://cabal.chat/
There isn't a way to monetize an open P2P protocol, or even a "captive user base" to sell to VCs for a cash exit so not a lot of development has been done on that area. (And I would be highly skeptical of any "blockchain" P2P Chat proposal)
A talk by Moxie at CCC deals with this exact question.
> “ Considerations for distributed and decentralized technologies from the perspective of a product that many would like to see decentralize.
> Amongst an environment of enthusiasm for blockchain-based technologies, efforts to decentralize the internet, and tremendous investment in distributed systems, there has been relatively little product movement in this area from the mobile and consumer internet spaces.
> This is an exploration of challenges for distributed technologies, as well as some considerations for what they do and don't provide, from the perspective of someone working on user-focused mobile communication. This also includes a look at how Signal addresses some of the same problems that decentralized and distributed technologies hope to solve.”
https://youtu.be/DdM-XTRyC9c
> “ Considerations for distributed and decentralized technologies from the perspective of a product that many would like to see decentralize.
> Amongst an environment of enthusiasm for blockchain-based technologies, efforts to decentralize the internet, and tremendous investment in distributed systems, there has been relatively little product movement in this area from the mobile and consumer internet spaces.
> This is an exploration of challenges for distributed technologies, as well as some considerations for what they do and don't provide, from the perspective of someone working on user-focused mobile communication. This also includes a look at how Signal addresses some of the same problems that decentralized and distributed technologies hope to solve.”
https://youtu.be/DdM-XTRyC9c
>so what (technically) is stopping a true E2E P2P platform?
technically nothing. even email kinda fits the bill if you squint hard enough.
realistically though, the vast majority of population will always gravitate towards streamlined workflow provided by centralized services, and the rest of us are dragged along.
technically nothing. even email kinda fits the bill if you squint hard enough.
realistically though, the vast majority of population will always gravitate towards streamlined workflow provided by centralized services, and the rest of us are dragged along.
I've been wondering the same thing for a while. The closest iteration of this I've come across so far is Session (https://getsession.org)
It routes messages through an Onion/TOR-like network of nodes that others volunteer to run. In return for running those nodes, they generate the Oxen cryptocurrency, similar to how mining Bitcoin works.
This way, it's not fully centralized like WhatsApp/Telegram/etc, but also solves the issues of devices directly communicating, like what happens when the app isn't running on the phone.
It routes messages through an Onion/TOR-like network of nodes that others volunteer to run. In return for running those nodes, they generate the Oxen cryptocurrency, similar to how mining Bitcoin works.
This way, it's not fully centralized like WhatsApp/Telegram/etc, but also solves the issues of devices directly communicating, like what happens when the app isn't running on the phone.
Is there a P2P messaging service that allows you to save all of your messaging history (including media files) in the cloud, sync it through different devices and search it instantly, even when it's not downloaded on your device?
Apple doesn't like them. We already have:
XMPP (with E2EE)
Mumble
IRC
Email
Mastodon
etc.
Apple makes it very hard to publish smartphone apps for these.
My understanding is p2p doesn't really work in the true sense? Almost everyone is behind routers these days and ipv4 is still the main addressing system. Forwarding servers are needed. Skype used to be p2p based but had to be centralized after purchased by Microsoft cause of quality issues so its also centralized, although there were some theories about the nsa getting involved and what not
Session https://getsession.org/
Electron desktop client instantly disqualifies it as a Telegram Desktop competitor. Telegram Desktop is probably the best example of how desktop software should be built.
This is a wise move - apart from the finances and steady revenue stream, Telegram is well aware that most channel owners already include "paid posts" and sponsor messages. As a channel owner, the biggest stumbling block is discoverability. Therefore, you contact big channel owners and request them to put up your post (or pay extra to pin it).
There's a cost involved - it depends on the number of subscriptions. Though, from my rough estimates, 1 in 5 subscribers end up getting it. There are detailed channel statistics that measure the impact of each post made.
I notice the discussion here is being done by most users, who don't have channels or not on Telegram either. There has been a gradual acceptance of Telegram here, which is vying for a serious social media alternative. WhatsApp plans to roll out "Communities" in response to Telegram channels. However, its ownership is nuclear waste.
They have several innovative features in pipeline. I use channel to relay video calling (I can record it and host unlimited users). The video calling has improved by leaps and bounds in past several weeks and has become a serious alternative to Facetime.
There's a cost involved - it depends on the number of subscriptions. Though, from my rough estimates, 1 in 5 subscribers end up getting it. There are detailed channel statistics that measure the impact of each post made.
I notice the discussion here is being done by most users, who don't have channels or not on Telegram either. There has been a gradual acceptance of Telegram here, which is vying for a serious social media alternative. WhatsApp plans to roll out "Communities" in response to Telegram channels. However, its ownership is nuclear waste.
They have several innovative features in pipeline. I use channel to relay video calling (I can record it and host unlimited users). The video calling has improved by leaps and bounds in past several weeks and has become a serious alternative to Facetime.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The observation on HN seems rather strange. One Day, HN bash anyone who support Ads as a way forward to offer any Internet services. All Ads are evil. At some point people are even questioning how could anyone be working inside Ad industry.
Another day HN are extremely happy to see Telegram getting ads to support their services. Because they are competing with Facebook / Whatsapp.
May be after all it isn't Ads are evil or bad, it is ads from Facebook or Google are bad?
Another day HN are extremely happy to see Telegram getting ads to support their services. Because they are competing with Facebook / Whatsapp.
May be after all it isn't Ads are evil or bad, it is ads from Facebook or Google are bad?
In the user-directed communication, they claim external links aren't allowed to prevent advertiser spying.
But in the advertiser-directed comms, it's clear you can have an external link in a button below the ad text.
Am I not seeing something obvious or is it a contradiction?
But in the advertiser-directed comms, it's clear you can have an external link in a button below the ad text.
Am I not seeing something obvious or is it a contradiction?
I’m very curious to see if this is a success for the platform! It looks like a very not-creepy way to serve up ads.
One thing concerns me though (if I were to ever end up wanting to advertise) - no external links! Giving the audience to the thing I’m advertising is most of the reason I’d spend money on an ad.
I wonder what sorts of ads are useful if they’re text-only? They qualify no “external” links, so maybe you could still have links to another product-specific channel where there are external links?
One thing concerns me though (if I were to ever end up wanting to advertise) - no external links! Giving the audience to the thing I’m advertising is most of the reason I’d spend money on an ad.
I wonder what sorts of ads are useful if they’re text-only? They qualify no “external” links, so maybe you could still have links to another product-specific channel where there are external links?
> It looks like a very not-creepy way to serve up ads.
Context-based advertising is great for web content (and should have been made the standard years ago), but in a chat room, I'm not so sure.
How does Telegram pick the relevant "topic"? From the channel description alone? I don't think that would be accurate at all. They do it for now, but who knows what will happen in a year or two! Their profit margin is on the line, after all.
I know Telegram can read along with most messages sent through their platform, but up to now they didn't have a reason to do it. Now, I'm not so sure.
Context-based advertising is great for web content (and should have been made the standard years ago), but in a chat room, I'm not so sure.
How does Telegram pick the relevant "topic"? From the channel description alone? I don't think that would be accurate at all. They do it for now, but who knows what will happen in a year or two! Their profit margin is on the line, after all.
I know Telegram can read along with most messages sent through their platform, but up to now they didn't have a reason to do it. Now, I'm not so sure.
I’m not sure, but perhaps because they’re only serving these up in large channels, manual tagging will be used. Channel operators might be doing this work, with the revenue sharing agreement.
I think the idea is that first you create a Telegram channel for your product/store, then make a public message in that channel (which can contain whatever you want), then the ad links to that message. So the funnel is slightly longer, but goes through their platform.
Brand image/engagement style advertising is becoming increasingly popular.
You cannot have external link but you probably can '@yourchannel' which can display anything you would like.
I hope this works for telegram! They were going to need to launch ads at some point and this transparent plan to get started seems like it considered the user base. It’s become my favorite messaging app and I enjoy the pace of innovation. I get it’s not end to end encrypted but that’s not what I am asking for with telegram - just a decent messaging app that makes it easy to remain anonymous (not sharing phone number), great group support, and not domiciled in the west.
I know the ads plan will expand (I could see ads in 1000+ person groups and not limited to only channels)
I know the ads plan will expand (I could see ads in 1000+ person groups and not limited to only channels)
Yes telegram is so much better than WA from a customer's point of view.
The best thing I like about it is that it's an instant setup on every phone and doesn't require the Google backup integration which can take an hour to restore. Also the fact I can run it on multiple devices simultaneously is also kind of a big deal. Their API is also pretty amazing tbh.
I wish all my friends were on tg instead of wa and i would uninstall the later in a heartbeat.
The best thing I like about it is that it's an instant setup on every phone and doesn't require the Google backup integration which can take an hour to restore. Also the fact I can run it on multiple devices simultaneously is also kind of a big deal. Their API is also pretty amazing tbh.
I wish all my friends were on tg instead of wa and i would uninstall the later in a heartbeat.
> I wish all my friends were on tg
That's precisely how most people joined WhatsApp
That's what I did, then deleted WA account. Worked fine. Everyone I cared about came over. It also lowered my noise.
What I think is interesting is that the barrier to entry to join a new messaging service like Telegram is very small. The barrier to leave WA is very high. So to ask people to join Telegram and continue to run WA is trivial for them.
What I think is interesting is that the barrier to entry to join a new messaging service like Telegram is very small. The barrier to leave WA is very high. So to ask people to join Telegram and continue to run WA is trivial for them.
So you expect them to care about your preferences, but you don't care about theirs? That seems pretty selfish.
I am not installing an application which collects my data and spoonfeds it to entities with the explicit intention of influencing my behavior. No matter what side benefit that app provides.
And yes, I prefer to not communicate with people who would make such demands of me.
And yes, I prefer to not communicate with people who would make such demands of me.
Isn't that precisely what Telegram does? Unlike Facebook, they actually have all your data.
I trust Telegram with my data like I trust my wife with my credit card. So far Telegram, like the wife, has been responsible.
I trust Whatsapp with my data like I trust 409 internet princes with my credit card. Their reputation precedes them.
I trust Whatsapp with my data like I trust 409 internet princes with my credit card. Their reputation precedes them.
I wouldnt trust my wife but I trust Telegram
Not all about Telegram is golden however.
At some point last year, amidst the skyrocketing popularity of the app and WhatsApp coming under heat for various reasons, someone at Telegram thought of a fantastic (read: user-hostile) way to "increase engagement" - Show a persistent panel on the home screen with the name of every contact on your phone who uses Telegram, in the hopes that you would click one of them and engage them in a conversation.
It's such a wild invasion of UI that it continues to blow my mind that it was greenlit. The panel cannot be disabled and lives right underneath your chat list where it has no business of appearing. They refused to remove it or at the very least, make it optional, and instead asked everyone to use their suggested workaround which, spoiler alert, isn't applicable for a large userbase [1]. I had to revoke "Contacts" permission to get rid of the panel.
This single change has made me quite bitter about the direction of Telegram.
[1]: https://bugs.telegram.org/c/1316
At some point last year, amidst the skyrocketing popularity of the app and WhatsApp coming under heat for various reasons, someone at Telegram thought of a fantastic (read: user-hostile) way to "increase engagement" - Show a persistent panel on the home screen with the name of every contact on your phone who uses Telegram, in the hopes that you would click one of them and engage them in a conversation.
It's such a wild invasion of UI that it continues to blow my mind that it was greenlit. The panel cannot be disabled and lives right underneath your chat list where it has no business of appearing. They refused to remove it or at the very least, make it optional, and instead asked everyone to use their suggested workaround which, spoiler alert, isn't applicable for a large userbase [1]. I had to revoke "Contacts" permission to get rid of the panel.
This single change has made me quite bitter about the direction of Telegram.
[1]: https://bugs.telegram.org/c/1316
I didn't give it Contacts any permissions. Works fine.
Sorry, what's the problem there? I don't use Telegram, but it seems it's just putting that where otherwise would just be empty space?
I'll be waiting on the sidelines. Telegram has grown way beyond what is sustainable by just the founder's funding. It has also managed to avoid government scrutiny and any legal oversight by running behind a web of proxies and servers. While that has served it well for growth, it can't scale forever as infrastructure costs catch up.
My personal thesis has been to wait and watch as telegram is forced to either shut down or turn evil to raise enough money for their finances. They tried to stay away from fiat by launching <del>TRON</del> TON but that got shut down, and now they're asking for money in euros.
Once this ad program succeeds (it better do, telegram badly needs a revenue stream), it becomes a lynch-pin in telegram's model of success - their bank accounts are prone to seizure the next time a scandal blows up on telegram.
Edit: The ToS defines "Company" as "the legal entity which belongs to Telegram group of companies and has a right to enter the Agreement with the Advertiser for the Services". Sounds like they're extending the "hidden-hosting" to "hidden-shell-companies" as well. Would advertisers be okay entering an agreement with an unknown legal entity?
My personal thesis has been to wait and watch as telegram is forced to either shut down or turn evil to raise enough money for their finances. They tried to stay away from fiat by launching <del>TRON</del> TON but that got shut down, and now they're asking for money in euros.
Once this ad program succeeds (it better do, telegram badly needs a revenue stream), it becomes a lynch-pin in telegram's model of success - their bank accounts are prone to seizure the next time a scandal blows up on telegram.
Edit: The ToS defines "Company" as "the legal entity which belongs to Telegram group of companies and has a right to enter the Agreement with the Advertiser for the Services". Sounds like they're extending the "hidden-hosting" to "hidden-shell-companies" as well. Would advertisers be okay entering an agreement with an unknown legal entity?
> They tried to stay away from fiat by launching TRON but that got shut down, and now they're asking for money in euros.
TON. Really not sure why the ended up shutting it down, but I wonder why they would not go directly with Bitcoin on Lightning instead of reinventing the wheel.
TON. Really not sure why the ended up shutting it down, but I wonder why they would not go directly with Bitcoin on Lightning instead of reinventing the wheel.
> Really not sure why the ended up shutting it down
They were sued by the SEC: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-146
They were sued by the SEC: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-146
The project has actually re-launched independently under the name of FreeTON, and now EverScale:
https://docs.tonalliance.org/
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/ton-crystal/
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/ton-crystal/
Not really, this is a fork. Original ton.org is online.
First real ads that I see is everywhere. From my perspective it's too much of them. There need to be some frequency filter.
And quality of those ads are very bad: casino, crypto channels. Some of those channels have less than 10k subscribers.
Consider the fact that to many people and especially advertisers that Telegram is primarily known for stuff like this: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/hope-not-hate-telegram-nazis
No reputable brand is going to want to touch this for a long time unless they clean up their service which they have been notoriously reluctant to do.
No reputable brand is going to want to touch this for a long time unless they clean up their service which they have been notoriously reluctant to do.
>not domiciled in the west
Its legal domicile is in the UK.
Its legal domicile is in the UK.
Aren't they the ones "jurisdiction shopping"/"domicile hopping" in a ridiculous game of cat and mouse with courts and authorities?
I much prefer the model of e.g. Signal: Just don't store any data of your users that is none of your business to begin with.
I much prefer the model of e.g. Signal: Just don't store any data of your users that is none of your business to begin with.
Yeah, they mention various (sub-)companies: Telegram UK Holdings Ltd in England, Telegram Group Inc in the British Virgin Islands and Telegram FZ-LLC in Dubai. Source: https://telegram.org/privacy
Looking elsewhere I can find mention of other companies and domicile hopping, including an American LLC.
The main one seems to be in the British Virgin Islands right now. I don't know how much that's separate from the UK or if the one in the UK being only a sub-company exempts it from surveillance, but it's not something I would rely on for sure.
Looking elsewhere I can find mention of other companies and domicile hopping, including an American LLC.
The main one seems to be in the British Virgin Islands right now. I don't know how much that's separate from the UK or if the one in the UK being only a sub-company exempts it from surveillance, but it's not something I would rely on for sure.
I checked the UK Registrar of companies and all the companies seem dissolved.
> not end to end encrypted but that’s not what I am asking for with telegram
Why not? Why allow any third party to collect data on you and store it for an unlimited time?
Why not? Why allow any third party to collect data on you and store it for an unlimited time?
It has some convenience tradeoffs. E.g. I can read the same chat on phone and desktop without hiccups.
WhatsApp does that too now, even on the web.
Signal has a desktop client as well (no web one, unfortunately) – I also haven't seen any hiccups there.
Yes, this is 10 or 100 times more complicated to get right when using end-to-end encryption, but it's clearly doable, and Telegram has finally been proven wrong empirically about there being a dilemma of security vs. usability in messaging.
Yes, they still lead the field in usability, but the encrypted competition is past the hard cryptographic hurdles, allowing them to focus on the front end.
Signal has a desktop client as well (no web one, unfortunately) – I also haven't seen any hiccups there.
Yes, this is 10 or 100 times more complicated to get right when using end-to-end encryption, but it's clearly doable, and Telegram has finally been proven wrong empirically about there being a dilemma of security vs. usability in messaging.
Yes, they still lead the field in usability, but the encrypted competition is past the hard cryptographic hurdles, allowing them to focus on the front end.
> WhatsApp does that too now, even on the web.
It just doesn’t work right. It’s good for typing with a keyboard, but other than that, it’s always lagging behind the phone, which has to be online.
It just doesn’t work right. It’s good for typing with a keyboard, but other than that, it’s always lagging behind the phone, which has to be online.
With Matrix you can even browse E2E history on a brand new device.
How good is WA/Signal message search?
Without limited options for backup and cross-device migration, I don't use Signal for anything too important, so search is less important.
Whatsapp UI and search are OK but if you have a very long chat history then simple things like jumping to a specific date are difficult. I end up guessing a medium-to-rare search term and using the search history to jump back.
I'd much prefer having control of the data with simple export to my own device for my own search/analysis, but none of these apps do it.
Whatsapp UI and search are OK but if you have a very long chat history then simple things like jumping to a specific date are difficult. I end up guessing a medium-to-rare search term and using the search history to jump back.
I'd much prefer having control of the data with simple export to my own device for my own search/analysis, but none of these apps do it.
Very good in my experience for WhatsApp.
In the new multi-device beta, desktop clients only sync about a year's worth of messages, though. Not sure if this will change in the final product.
In the new multi-device beta, desktop clients only sync about a year's worth of messages, though. Not sure if this will change in the final product.
I agree. Making a decent messaging app with privacy first, they need to make money somehow. I don't want them to go out of business. Though I hope, the ads are not right in your face like youtube does.
> privacy first
This is an unsubstantiated marketing claim, nothing else. It's sad to see it get repeated here, by and for a technical audience that really should know better.
This is an unsubstantiated marketing claim, nothing else. It's sad to see it get repeated here, by and for a technical audience that really should know better.
> I get it’s not end to end encrypted but that’s not what I am asking for with telegram - just a decent messaging app that makes it easy to remain anonymous (not sharing phone number)...
Big thumbs here to TG: I don't use WhatsApp. Never installed it, never will. TG is not just about "not being FB": the UI is really cool and the synch between several devices (say phone and laptop) is flawless.
Now... You wrote "easy to remain anonymous" but AFAICT you cannot register a TG account without a phone number? Or can you now? As in: can you only download the desktop app and do all your messaging from you computer, without ever installing anything on your phone and without ever giving out a phone number for verification?
Big thumbs here to TG: I don't use WhatsApp. Never installed it, never will. TG is not just about "not being FB": the UI is really cool and the synch between several devices (say phone and laptop) is flawless.
Now... You wrote "easy to remain anonymous" but AFAICT you cannot register a TG account without a phone number? Or can you now? As in: can you only download the desktop app and do all your messaging from you computer, without ever installing anything on your phone and without ever giving out a phone number for verification?
I think they meant anonymous with respect to other users. With Telegram you can create a username and be contacted through that without revealing your phone number. As far as I know that's not possible with WhatsApp.
The sync is so great, especially if you're trying to message with in-flight wifi. In-flight wifi usually only works on one device at a time which means you can't use Whatsapp from your iPad or laptop on the plane.
You do need a phone number to register (I use my google voice number), but you can select who can actually see it on your profile. When you join groups, it isn't exposing it to others unless you add them as contacts - and even then you can disable from sharing with those contacts.
You do need a phone number to register (I use my google voice number), but you can select who can actually see it on your profile. When you join groups, it isn't exposing it to others unless you add them as contacts - and even then you can disable from sharing with those contacts.
AFAIK you do have to use a phone number to sign up with Telegram, but you never need to expose it to other users. I assume that's the kind of anonymity that OP means.
That doesn't hide your identity from a government that wants to arrest you for unapproved speech.
If you're an LGBTQ user in many countries, you might want more anonymity than a "please don't show this to other users" button.
If you're an LGBTQ user in many countries, you might want more anonymity than a "please don't show this to other users" button.
In theory one could use disposable sim cards, but they're easily traceable and even if you rotate the cards very frequently, it'd still be easy to pinpoint who and where you are. The logistics is also infeasible.
But I wouldn't trust TG on that area either. If a government really wants to, they can certainly exploit encryption flaws in the TG protocol and get you. Not as easy as tracing SIM cards, but definitely possible and within govs reach
But I wouldn't trust TG on that area either. If a government really wants to, they can certainly exploit encryption flaws in the TG protocol and get you. Not as easy as tracing SIM cards, but definitely possible and within govs reach
The minimum spends look ridiculous.
>To ensure and maintain high quality of ad content, a minimum advance payment of €2,000,000 is required to launch ads on the Telegram Ad Platform.
>Of this payment, Telegram holds €1,000,000 as a deposit, and makes the remaining sum available to the advertiser to spend on displaying ads.
>If the contract is terminated and the advertiser spent less than €10,000,000 on ads within the preceding 12 months, the €1,000,000 deposit is withheld by Telegram.
>If the contract is terminated and the advertiser spent more than €10,000,000 on ads within the preceding 12 months, the €1,000,000 deposit is returned.
This seems like a solution to Telegram's cashflow problem - doesn't look like it has much runway left.
>To ensure and maintain high quality of ad content, a minimum advance payment of €2,000,000 is required to launch ads on the Telegram Ad Platform.
>Of this payment, Telegram holds €1,000,000 as a deposit, and makes the remaining sum available to the advertiser to spend on displaying ads.
>If the contract is terminated and the advertiser spent less than €10,000,000 on ads within the preceding 12 months, the €1,000,000 deposit is withheld by Telegram.
>If the contract is terminated and the advertiser spent more than €10,000,000 on ads within the preceding 12 months, the €1,000,000 deposit is returned.
This seems like a solution to Telegram's cashflow problem - doesn't look like it has much runway left.
This will hopefully keep out bad actors (spammers, fraudsters). If they can afford doing this, good on them.
Telegram is home to many cryptocurrency communities, the first thing I thought of when I saw this was that it's going to be heaven for phishers/fraudsters targeting those.
Telegram is home to many cryptocurrency communities, the first thing I thought of when I saw this was that it's going to be heaven for phishers/fraudsters targeting those.
Can you point to some good bitcoin-centric communities in telegram please?
No, I don't use it, but at least some time ago when I was following it a bit more closely every new shitcoin/-token had Telegram as their primary communication channel.
As a reminder, Crypto.com alone just spent $100M on an advertising campaign involving Matt Damon, urging people to buy currencies and comparing crypto buyers to colonizers of America, or the great generals of history, or something like that.
So the crypto space definitely has money to invest on advertising, if anything to remain up to their promises a bit longer.
So the crypto space definitely has money to invest on advertising, if anything to remain up to their promises a bit longer.
> This seems like a solution to Telegram's cashflow problem - doesn't look like it has much runway left.
There’s a lot to unpack here. Telegram has plenty of runway left, probably. Pavel Durov is not strapped for cash. That’s just a fact. They’ve been pushing out regular updates with features and other development work that could’ve easily been delayed for the ad platform if it was a priority. They’ve actually deployed bandwidth intense things like video calls, too, which ostensibly are lower priority.
What this does to me is signal that Telegram wants to engage with serious advertisers to start with. Because the content is injected into channels, of which there are many, it likely is easier to abuse than other networks. So the solution is to make the barrier to entry sufficiently great that only serious advertisers will buy in.
So, I’m less inclined to say they’re in need of cash flow than they are wishing to finally make money, and not do so with low quality content.
There’s a lot to unpack here. Telegram has plenty of runway left, probably. Pavel Durov is not strapped for cash. That’s just a fact. They’ve been pushing out regular updates with features and other development work that could’ve easily been delayed for the ad platform if it was a priority. They’ve actually deployed bandwidth intense things like video calls, too, which ostensibly are lower priority.
What this does to me is signal that Telegram wants to engage with serious advertisers to start with. Because the content is injected into channels, of which there are many, it likely is easier to abuse than other networks. So the solution is to make the barrier to entry sufficiently great that only serious advertisers will buy in.
So, I’m less inclined to say they’re in need of cash flow than they are wishing to finally make money, and not do so with low quality content.
From earlier this year, WSJ reported[0] telegram raised debt finance, and needed $700M, out of which 500M was just to return to TON investors. The article also quotes Durov as claiming "A project of our size needs at least a few hundred million dollars per year to keep going".
>To pay the bills, Mr. Durov is issuing investors $1 billion to $1.5 billion of company debt, with the promise of discounted equity if the company eventually goes public, the people briefed on the plans said.
>To repay its creditors, Telegram is selling five-year bonds that pay roughly 7% or 8% a year
Durov is rich, but he's not going to spend all his fortune on running Telegram and re-paying these investors. He's also refused to raise money via equity in telegram, so advertising is the only way to keep the lights on telegram.
[0]: https://archive.md/mGtgp
>To pay the bills, Mr. Durov is issuing investors $1 billion to $1.5 billion of company debt, with the promise of discounted equity if the company eventually goes public, the people briefed on the plans said.
>To repay its creditors, Telegram is selling five-year bonds that pay roughly 7% or 8% a year
Durov is rich, but he's not going to spend all his fortune on running Telegram and re-paying these investors. He's also refused to raise money via equity in telegram, so advertising is the only way to keep the lights on telegram.
[0]: https://archive.md/mGtgp
> Pavel Durov is not strapped for cash. That’s just a fact.
I love Telegram over anything else like others, but I don't think you can say "that's just a fact" unless Durov's finances are public, which as far as I know, they aren't. So yeah, probably he isn't strapped for cash, but that's not a fact, it's a guess.
I love Telegram over anything else like others, but I don't think you can say "that's just a fact" unless Durov's finances are public, which as far as I know, they aren't. So yeah, probably he isn't strapped for cash, but that's not a fact, it's a guess.
Forbes quotes his net worth at $17B, the vast majority of which comes from Telegram ownership.
>[..] his wealth increased from $3.4 billion in 2020 to $17.2 billion in 2021. The wealth of Telegram founder increased exponentially recently after the app became popular.
>[..] his wealth increased from $3.4 billion in 2020 to $17.2 billion in 2021. The wealth of Telegram founder increased exponentially recently after the app became popular.
> Forbes
Forbes is also estimating (fancy guessing), doesn't make it into a fact.
> net worth
Also not cash, which would be needed to fund Telegram
> vast majority of which comes from Telegram ownership
Also means you wouldn't be able to use that net worth for funding Telegram, as that's where the net worth comes from anyway.
Forbes is also estimating (fancy guessing), doesn't make it into a fact.
> net worth
Also not cash, which would be needed to fund Telegram
> vast majority of which comes from Telegram ownership
Also means you wouldn't be able to use that net worth for funding Telegram, as that's where the net worth comes from anyway.
Are these types of structurings common in the ad industry?
Instagram started ads similarly though minimums were lower at around 300k or so. Essentially Telegram wants small number of big advertisers and is willing to accept lower CPM rate to make it worthwhile for those businesses.
Telegram ad product and infra are probably not ready to scale right now so they decided to go with manual process. Probably already arranged a few big accounts prior to announcement.
Telegram ad product and infra are probably not ready to scale right now so they decided to go with manual process. Probably already arranged a few big accounts prior to announcement.
how is this not anti-competetive behavior? it basically means small businesses have no chance, absolutely no chance at all, to advertise on the platforms
That's not what anticompetitive means. Being priced out is not an unfair disadvantage. Not all companies can afford TV or Superbowl ads either.
You go through the agencies that have bought in bulk. In the same way that you don’t go to a Black&Decker office to buy a drill, you get it from one of their distributors, who buy in bulk
There's no blanket ban on "anti competitive behavior", and similarly no rule that says small businesses are owed a leg up.
The FTC breaks down anti competition regulation into monopoly-related conduct, which this is obviously not because telegram is a complete non-factor in the messaging space, and horizontal conduct, which this is not because telegram has no near-peer companies with whom they agree not to compete.
The FTC breaks down anti competition regulation into monopoly-related conduct, which this is obviously not because telegram is a complete non-factor in the messaging space, and horizontal conduct, which this is not because telegram has no near-peer companies with whom they agree not to compete.
As an outsider, what is very common is conversion tracking, aka knowing whether people actually click your ad and buy your products, because that's the ultimate metric to optimize for. Most of the ad tracking we see in the web is actually not needed for the targeting part, but for the conversion tracking part. This product lacks conversion tracking, so I wonder if people with large enough budgets find it justified to run ads on the platform.
As a user, I find it great that my privacy is not impinged upon. I hope it will work for them!
As a user, I find it great that my privacy is not impinged upon. I hope it will work for them!
Although no external links are allowed, you can still track conversion with good old promo codes.
How do they optimize clicks if they don't impinge on your privacy? I didn't read the page in detail so maybe I'm missing something
They do not allow external links so there are no clicks.
This was actually a genius decision. It also represents a real sacrifice on Telegram's part (sacrificing dollars) to protect user privacy, because advertisers are not going to pay as much for this as they will for other (more invasive) platforms.
Be sure to leave feedback with companies to let them know that you found them through Telegram.
Be sure to leave feedback with companies to let them know that you found them through Telegram.
> Most of the ad tracking we see in the web is actually not needed for the targeting part
That’s because the ad and the auction that precedes it, collects data for further targeting.
That’s because the ad and the auction that precedes it, collects data for further targeting.
Yes, there are usually minimum spend requirements and other agreements for larger ad campaigns and ongoing relationships, especially with closed platforms like social networks that own the audience and platform.
Contracts also include termination terms but upfront deposits like these are more rare.
Contracts also include termination terms but upfront deposits like these are more rare.
TikTok's are similar
So, this seems like a potential positive feedback loop if Telegram were ever to matter much. Are other platforms like this? If Facebook and Google both did this, it seems like we'd end up with an economy that we don't want (assuming they matter as much as I think they do.)
Where is this from? Not seeing it on the linked page.
I don't see it now, but if you sign in to the Telegram Ads dashboard, it lets you apply as an advertiser. The application form has the above text. It doesn't show up after you've applied. I instead see the following now:
>Your request to add funds has been sent.
>We have placed your account on the waiting list and will send you a notification as soon as the platform becomes available to you.
>Your request to add funds has been sent.
>We have placed your account on the waiting list and will send you a notification as soon as the platform becomes available to you.
If you search the text it leads to a telegram channel with that info and this screenshot from the portal on telegram
TIL telegram public channels are Google indexed
https://imgur.com/a/vx87neV
https://t.me/tginfoen/1281
TIL telegram public channels are Google indexed
https://imgur.com/a/vx87neV
https://t.me/tginfoen/1281
[deleted]
I think that’s typical for a big platform - big ad agency relationship.
These conditions are not for regular ad buyer, but for an agency that commits to the volume and re-sells it to businesses.
These conditions are not for regular ad buyer, but for an agency that commits to the volume and re-sells it to businesses.
How about ad-agencies that sell "Telegram Ad-Space"? Wouldn't that be a workaround for the spammers?
My guess is that the agency providing a service to spammers wouldn't, as if Telegram figures out that they are letting spammers through the agency's checks, they can ban them and the agency would lose their deposit.
This, plus the very strict rules (no links, no conversion tracking, no targeting) makes me think this will be hugely unsuccessful
But what do I know. I don't have 1 million EUR as a deposit lying around.
But what do I know. I don't have 1 million EUR as a deposit lying around.
[deleted]
Some answers and clarification on ads from Pavel Durov [1](Google Translate):
“Many users have suggested introducing the ability to disable official advertisements on Telegram channels. Today we are announcing two more changes:
1. Users will be able to disable official advertisements.
We have already started work on this new feature and look forward to launching it this month. It can be issued in the form of an inexpensive subscription, which will allow any user to directly financially support the development of Telegram and never see official advertisements in the channels.
2. Channel authors will be able to turn off official advertisements in their channels for all users.
Some channel creators would also like to "turn off" advertisements in their channels for all users. At the moment, we are calculating the economic conditions for this option. Advertisers will soon be able to place an "invisible" ad on any channel that - assuming there is sufficient cost per impression - will result in no ads on that channel.
Let me remind you that Telegram as a messenger will always be free of ads:
Telegram will not show promotional messages in your chat list, private conversations or groups. Advertising will affect only large channels - services where there is already advertising, and the support of which leads to the greatest costs on the part of Telegram.
We will continue to work on features that will allow Telegram to break even. The interests of users and content authors will remain our priority in this process.”
1: https://t.me/durov_russia/36
“Many users have suggested introducing the ability to disable official advertisements on Telegram channels. Today we are announcing two more changes:
1. Users will be able to disable official advertisements.
We have already started work on this new feature and look forward to launching it this month. It can be issued in the form of an inexpensive subscription, which will allow any user to directly financially support the development of Telegram and never see official advertisements in the channels.
2. Channel authors will be able to turn off official advertisements in their channels for all users.
Some channel creators would also like to "turn off" advertisements in their channels for all users. At the moment, we are calculating the economic conditions for this option. Advertisers will soon be able to place an "invisible" ad on any channel that - assuming there is sufficient cost per impression - will result in no ads on that channel.
Let me remind you that Telegram as a messenger will always be free of ads:
Telegram will not show promotional messages in your chat list, private conversations or groups. Advertising will affect only large channels - services where there is already advertising, and the support of which leads to the greatest costs on the part of Telegram.
We will continue to work on features that will allow Telegram to break even. The interests of users and content authors will remain our priority in this process.”
1: https://t.me/durov_russia/36
Wow, finally a company which takes money in return for services. Why is this such a seemingly outlandish thing for modern tech companies?
> Why is this such a seemingly outlandish thing for modern tech companies?
I'm sure over 95% of modern tech companies take money in return for their services.
I'm sure over 95% of modern tech companies take money in return for their services.
> Users will be able to disable official advertisements.
> in the form of an inexpensive subscription,
I've honestly been wanting to give Telegram money.
There's no official English post nor profile anywhere? Kinda amusing, I'd say.
I won't be surprised if in the next few years ads will be added to private convos anyway along with some form of profiling but at the same time users will graciously have an option to disable these with one-time payment or subscription.
I've seen this small-steps tactics way too many times to know how this gonna end.
I won't be surprised if in the next few years ads will be added to private convos anyway along with some form of profiling but at the same time users will graciously have an option to disable these with one-time payment or subscription.
I've seen this small-steps tactics way too many times to know how this gonna end.
This is pretty cool!
Well I guess I won't be seeing any Taco Bell or LSD ads there:
> Ads must not promote psychoactive substances, alcoholic beverages, tobacco products or fast food.
> Ads must not promote psychoactive substances, alcoholic beverages, tobacco products or fast food.
I love how they care about that while simultaneously being the most popular platform if you want to buy a fake vaccination certificate, hear about the latest conspiracy, download pirated software or meet your local nazi group. This is hilarious.
I get why you don't want to have ads for stuff like drugs, alcohol and tobacco. But fast food?
Durov had multiple posts related to healthy lifestyle where he talked about how bad fast food is and how people should prepare their own dishes.
Restaurants. Restaurants offer the slowest and least efficient way to eat. Cooking at home allows for healthier diets and more control over ingredients.[1]
[1] Durov's message on his 37th birthday
Restaurants. Restaurants offer the slowest and least efficient way to eat. Cooking at home allows for healthier diets and more control over ingredients.[1]
[1] Durov's message on his 37th birthday
I love the Telegram UX but have always been wary of its owner’s benevolence. They have bootstrapped an amazing platform and I hope they are able to get a strong ROI without compromising the great community they have built.
Signal is similarly backrolled by wealthy benefactors from Whatsapp, so this "benevolence" is not unique.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't be suspicious though, because Signal is a cautionary tale already (MobileCoin debacle and closed source server code).
That doesn't mean you shouldn't be suspicious though, because Signal is a cautionary tale already (MobileCoin debacle and closed source server code).
Telegram has much higher infrastructure costs due to their "unlimited size uploads", and channels/groups being non-e2ee = everything is stored forever.
Signal could run on benevolence. Telegram's debts were at 770M USD earlier this year. (https://archive.md/mGtgp)
Signal could run on benevolence. Telegram's debts were at 770M USD earlier this year. (https://archive.md/mGtgp)
I think Pavel isn't sweating about 5% of his net worth being tied up in an extremely popular passion project of his.
Telegram isn't really just a messenger, it's an anti-censorship system.
In fact, Telegram's burn rate would have to increase by roughly 3,000 to 5,000% for it to even make a yearly dent in his fortune, assuming he's invested in any kind of reasonable mix of assets.
Telegram isn't really just a messenger, it's an anti-censorship system.
In fact, Telegram's burn rate would have to increase by roughly 3,000 to 5,000% for it to even make a yearly dent in his fortune, assuming he's invested in any kind of reasonable mix of assets.
If you're using the 17B net worth figure (the one reported by Forbes), it is mostly just based on Telegram's quoted-valuation jumping to 30-40B. A lot of his net-worth is telegram equity at this point, and he's using debt financing to keep telegram operational.
The burn rate was "few hundred million dollars per year", as per Durov a year ago. Telegram has grown 50-60% in users since (350M->550M as per the graph on Wikipedia).
The burn rate was "few hundred million dollars per year", as per Durov a year ago. Telegram has grown 50-60% in users since (350M->550M as per the graph on Wikipedia).
You're probably right, I stand corrected.
One extra point is that burn rate was likely a fraction of that figure for most of Telegram's history when it was much smaller. Telegram really only exploded to meteoric heights within the last few years.
50-60% increase in users also isn't necessarily indicative of a similar rise in expenses. The cost to store files and stream them has basically only ever gone down, and you can easily cut service costs by optimizing data storage, archiving content etc.
Loading content from years ago on Telegram is very slow, indicating heavily optimized tiered storage. They're clearly optimizing for burn rate to some extent.
One extra point is that burn rate was likely a fraction of that figure for most of Telegram's history when it was much smaller. Telegram really only exploded to meteoric heights within the last few years.
50-60% increase in users also isn't necessarily indicative of a similar rise in expenses. The cost to store files and stream them has basically only ever gone down, and you can easily cut service costs by optimizing data storage, archiving content etc.
Loading content from years ago on Telegram is very slow, indicating heavily optimized tiered storage. They're clearly optimizing for burn rate to some extent.
Completely agree on all points (their infrastructure costs should still be in the same ballpark as before, but this growth will mark a dent).
No matter how much they optimize, Durov can't keep it running infinitely.
No matter how much they optimize, Durov can't keep it running infinitely.
Telegram's communities are extremely lucrative
Whether you created entire country dividing conspiracies just to sell some Q-labeled coffee mugs to the followers, or promoting your next crypto service, Telegram is there
Its pretty much the best
Whether you created entire country dividing conspiracies just to sell some Q-labeled coffee mugs to the followers, or promoting your next crypto service, Telegram is there
Its pretty much the best
It seems like a much more prolific version of Discord, where the focus is clearly on large groups, and it handles this surprisingly well. I’m not sure why people used to draw comparisons with Signal, to be honest, given that anecdotally virtually no one uses Telegram with E2EE, and its implementation of it is remarkably crippled.
IMO mostly because Telegram is a daily driver for many to keep in touch with friends and family. Just like signal but with more fancy functions. While discord still is a weird gaming community, more along to a teamspeak server.
I also don't have exact numbers but private chats are heavily used in some parts of telegram (mainly the grey or black markets)
I also don't have exact numbers but private chats are heavily used in some parts of telegram (mainly the grey or black markets)
Discord if you need sub discussions in the same community.
Most communities don’t need that, so telegram is good enough for them.
There is alot of crossdrift, on crypto telegram nobody cares if they are currently browsing discord or telegram
Most communities don’t need that, so telegram is good enough for them.
There is alot of crossdrift, on crypto telegram nobody cares if they are currently browsing discord or telegram
I use telegram with E2EE ;(
Their test rollout was universally reviled:
- it came as a hidden message at the very end of the message timeline
- it broke unread count on many clients (since it was hidden, it was unread, and there were no notifications other than the unread count on the app's icon that wouldn't go away)
- the test messages ended with "how will it affect you/users?) and instead of leading a post with an answer, it simply dumped you in Pavel Durov's chat
- they looked exactly as any other message in the timeline with no indication it was an ad
Presumably all this will be fixed, but people are kinda pissed.
- it came as a hidden message at the very end of the message timeline
- it broke unread count on many clients (since it was hidden, it was unread, and there were no notifications other than the unread count on the app's icon that wouldn't go away)
- the test messages ended with "how will it affect you/users?) and instead of leading a post with an answer, it simply dumped you in Pavel Durov's chat
- they looked exactly as any other message in the timeline with no indication it was an ad
Presumably all this will be fixed, but people are kinda pissed.
HNers: what do you use telegram such that ads would be intrusive?
I own about 40-50 of these groups that now get ads. My biggest fear is that there will be so many ads that nobody is clicking mine anymore.
However, nearly all these big channels have some kind of ads already. As long as they don't spam their new ads, my users likely won't find it intrusive at all
However, nearly all these big channels have some kind of ads already. As long as they don't spam their new ads, my users likely won't find it intrusive at all
> Unlike other apps, Telegram doesn't track whether users tap on a sponsored message and doesn't profile them based on their activity.
I wonder how this will go down with advertisers used to the usual pay-per-click and being able to demographically target their audience before spending their ad dollars.
I wonder how this will go down with advertisers used to the usual pay-per-click and being able to demographically target their audience before spending their ad dollars.
I'm curious if there will there be a possibility that targeted ads may be regulated, especially if alternative models like this and DDG's approach are successful enough.
> demographically target their audience
That depends, some platforms already have their demographics skews so that might be indicative
> pay-per-click
Most platforms even tracked conversions with their pixels, but that will become a no-no as we're nearing the death of the 3rd party cookies. Companies will most probably start relying on Market Mix Models that model the impact of investment into ads on different channels on Revenue also taking into account things such as effect lags etc. Facebook has recently introduced an open source solution for this. I work for a company that also provides their own solution as a part of our platform and the interest is definitely picking up, so this issue might become less of an issue due to how the overall advertising ecosystem evolves in the next few years.
That depends, some platforms already have their demographics skews so that might be indicative
> pay-per-click
Most platforms even tracked conversions with their pixels, but that will become a no-no as we're nearing the death of the 3rd party cookies. Companies will most probably start relying on Market Mix Models that model the impact of investment into ads on different channels on Revenue also taking into account things such as effect lags etc. Facebook has recently introduced an open source solution for this. I work for a company that also provides their own solution as a part of our platform and the interest is definitely picking up, so this issue might become less of an issue due to how the overall advertising ecosystem evolves in the next few years.
Advertisers will use third-party analytic services that profile channels audience (but not individual users).
Well, there’s still a way to target topics & languages, as well as specific channels.
Any Telegram users here?
I've only ever heard it used when talking about batshit American cults.
Not exactly a target audience i want to reach.
I've only ever heard it used when talking about batshit American cults.
Not exactly a target audience i want to reach.
Furries have heavily used the platform since before it went mainstream because of the custom sticker pack feature which amazingly, no other IM platform has reliably copied.
But yes, recently nutcases have taken to the platform since there is no big tech corp behind it to moderate the platform. They do delete illegal groups and spam, but if it’s legal and not causing disruption to other users, it’s almost certainly not getting deleted.
But yes, recently nutcases have taken to the platform since there is no big tech corp behind it to moderate the platform. They do delete illegal groups and spam, but if it’s legal and not causing disruption to other users, it’s almost certainly not getting deleted.
Active user here - telegram
* is fast
* has native apps
* has amazing stickers
* lets you share almost unlimited media
* has a decent bot API
* is secure enough for my personal use (though I don’t pretend to use it as a secure messenger nor do I advocate for it if this is important for someon. Please do not start an argument about this again, search up telegram on hn.algolia for plenty of comments about security)
* calls and video is not as high quality as FaceTime but way better than WhatsApp
* is fast
* has native apps
* has amazing stickers
* lets you share almost unlimited media
* has a decent bot API
* is secure enough for my personal use (though I don’t pretend to use it as a secure messenger nor do I advocate for it if this is important for someon. Please do not start an argument about this again, search up telegram on hn.algolia for plenty of comments about security)
* calls and video is not as high quality as FaceTime but way better than WhatsApp
The stickers are completely open; Anyone can submit new packs. Animated stickers are also supported.
The clients are all opensource, and the APIs usable by anyone.
It has tons of little nice features as well. E.g., organizational directories, great search, fine grained notification settings, … .
There is also voice chat support, which is pretty nice.
The clients are all opensource, and the APIs usable by anyone.
It has tons of little nice features as well. E.g., organizational directories, great search, fine grained notification settings, … .
There is also voice chat support, which is pretty nice.
It's the WhatsApp of my social circle. The question for me is who doesn't use it?
Maybe its a region specific thing? I've honest never met or heard of someone using it IRL.
The only time i come across it is when a youtube news show what's to laugh at some Q people.
The only time i come across it is when a youtube news show what's to laugh at some Q people.
It always is :) I was just arguing in another thread how things like iMessage, facetime and FB messanger simply only have little relevance because of all the people not having access to that here in Switzerland.
Signal and Threema went kinda popular too the more media talked about WhatsApp. But Telegram was THE IM app with simply the most fun functionality.
On the other hand I also know people refusing to use Telegram so nobody would think they are in weird channels now.
Adding to that I may also have a privacy focused circle, I am sure you'll find a group of people here too who life the exact opposite
Signal and Threema went kinda popular too the more media talked about WhatsApp. But Telegram was THE IM app with simply the most fun functionality.
On the other hand I also know people refusing to use Telegram so nobody would think they are in weird channels now.
Adding to that I may also have a privacy focused circle, I am sure you'll find a group of people here too who life the exact opposite
It's definitely a country and region specific thing. Where I come from Telegram reigns supreme amongst young people. It's practically the default at universities. Custom stickers, polls, really useful bots - make it perfect for group settings and collaboration. It even scales really nicely from small groups for conversation to large groups for polls and dissemination of info.
No numbers needed means it's a no-brainer using Telegram for group communication where you may not want everyone in the group to know your number. Some university modules have large Telegram groups for everyone reading the course.
No numbers needed means it's a no-brainer using Telegram for group communication where you may not want everyone in the group to know your number. Some university modules have large Telegram groups for everyone reading the course.
> Any Telegram users here?
So those who target the vulnerable are definitely focusing on Whatsapp right now. The self-selection is working very well in Telegram's favour, though that probably is just a happy side effect.
>whereas Telegram users typically take these thing seriously.
And yet they don't mind the lack of encryption?
And yet they don't mind the lack of encryption?
I cannot speak for everybody, but for me the lack of encryption - thus allowing state actors to intercept - is a far better trade off than the explicit sharing of data with advertisers.
Note that I live in a nation in which I support and trust my state. Yet I do not trust advertisers and other entities who seek to influence my opinion. I'm sure that for those who live in states where the government is viewed as adversarial then Signal would be a better choice.
Note that I live in a nation in which I support and trust my state. Yet I do not trust advertisers and other entities who seek to influence my opinion. I'm sure that for those who live in states where the government is viewed as adversarial then Signal would be a better choice.
That's the thing, though: Telegram cannot be intercepted by state actors. They are jurisdiction hopping to evade that responsibility.
> Note that I live in a nation in which I support and trust my state.
Given the above: Do you trust any state's government?
> Note that I live in a nation in which I support and trust my state.
Given the above: Do you trust any state's government?
> They are jurisdiction hopping to evade that responsibility.
> Given the above: Do you trust any state's government?
Er, sorry, I meant "every", because you don't trust yours with Telegram – you trust a more or less random one, depending on their jurisdiction hopping location of the day.
I see. Well, you are correct. I'm sure that a particularly motivated entity with access to my Telegram could find something on me, and coercing foreigners with blackmail could be a good strategy for any government.
I understand and respect your motive for saying that telegram has no encryption. At the same time I cannot stop hating you for improper use of words.
I wish there was a simple and catchy word for describing a "vulnerable to the government" encryption
I wish there was a simple and catchy word for describing a "vulnerable to the government" encryption
For me, transport encrypted (e.g. TLS) is the bare minimum everything going over a wire should be encrypted with, so encryption in the context of messenger is for me always about E2E.
As far as I know, Google and Apple don't even allow apps to use unecrypted HTTP if dev's want them to be in their respective app store.
As a term, e2e encryption is quite short, and is also easy to search for, if someone does not know what it is.
As a term, e2e encryption is quite short, and is also easy to search for, if someone does not know what it is.
Can we stop comparing the lack of default-on e2ee in Telegram to "no encryption"? There is transport encryption in MTProto since the beginning. There are e2ee chats for those who want them.
>Can we stop comparing the lack of default-on e2ee in Telegram to "no encryption"?
I don't think we should. In the context of messaging at least, encryption should mean E2E encryption.
Bragging about client-to-server encryption is pointless nowadays, when 99% of the internet is already encrypted this way.
I don't think we should. In the context of messaging at least, encryption should mean E2E encryption.
Bragging about client-to-server encryption is pointless nowadays, when 99% of the internet is already encrypted this way.
That is quite misleading to a vast amount of people without tech background. I find it dishonest, even more so because Telegram actually does offer e2ee chats - and 1:1 voice/video chats are already e2ee, for what it's worth.
>That is quite misleading to a vast amount of people without tech background.
Not as misleading and potentially harmful as saying "Telegram is encrypted" as a blanket statement, because: 1. as I said, the client-to-server encryption is not noteworthy (almost everything has that) and it shouldn't be enough for privacy-conscious people. 2. even though Telegram does offer some e2e encryption too, its availability is quite limited and not representative of the typical Telegram usage.
Sure, I was being too dismissive there. But I don't like how Telegram gets brought up as a "private messenger", in the same context as fully e2e-encrypted messengers like Signal or even Whatsapp.
For all intents and purposes, Telegram is more similar to apps like Discord or Slack, seeing how most of the comms can be read by anyone who has access to the server. And Telegram can only be used with a phone number, so in terms of anonymity it's even worse than those.
Not as misleading and potentially harmful as saying "Telegram is encrypted" as a blanket statement, because: 1. as I said, the client-to-server encryption is not noteworthy (almost everything has that) and it shouldn't be enough for privacy-conscious people. 2. even though Telegram does offer some e2e encryption too, its availability is quite limited and not representative of the typical Telegram usage.
Sure, I was being too dismissive there. But I don't like how Telegram gets brought up as a "private messenger", in the same context as fully e2e-encrypted messengers like Signal or even Whatsapp.
For all intents and purposes, Telegram is more similar to apps like Discord or Slack, seeing how most of the comms can be read by anyone who has access to the server. And Telegram can only be used with a phone number, so in terms of anonymity it's even worse than those.
> For all intents and purposes, Telegram is more similar to apps like Discord or Slack, seeing how most of the comms can be read by anyone who has access to the server.
This is absolutely true and a nice comparison at that, thanks! I will try to use that in the future.
Most of my non-technical friends using Telegram are convinced that it's more secure than WhatsApp. Even many non-technical news outlets are propagating these claims. It makes me incredibly sad.
They are promising a usable Signal, but instead are providing a Discord with mandatory phone number registration.
Why resort to such dishonesty? Just let the product speak for itself.
This is absolutely true and a nice comparison at that, thanks! I will try to use that in the future.
Most of my non-technical friends using Telegram are convinced that it's more secure than WhatsApp. Even many non-technical news outlets are propagating these claims. It makes me incredibly sad.
They are promising a usable Signal, but instead are providing a Discord with mandatory phone number registration.
Why resort to such dishonesty? Just let the product speak for itself.
Is it? In WhatsApp all of your messages are E2EE. In Telegram it’s an option, only works in 1:1, doesn’t support desktop, and uses homegrown encryption.
> Can we stop comparing the lack of default-on e2ee in Telegram to "no encryption"?
No, because defaults matter. Users have a habit of never changing them.
No, because defaults matter. Users have a habit of never changing them.
It definitely is a Shibboleth: Everybody recommending it to me so far has done so either due to usability (which I get) or "because it's encrypted and more secure than WhatsApp".
The latter is a very good indicator of misplaced faith in shoddy news outlets propagating these claims uneditorialized.
The latter is a very good indicator of misplaced faith in shoddy news outlets propagating these claims uneditorialized.
> "because it's encrypted and more secure than WhatsApp".
Telegram does get access to your data, and them getting into advertisement is literally the topic of this discussion.
As a result, governments aren't getting access to Telegram, advertisers are.
As a result, governments aren't getting access to Telegram, advertisers are.
I think that you should read the fine article. It seems that you are assuming things that are incorrect.
I mean, Telegram also supports fully-fledged microblogging (with personal channels) in a way Whatsapp just doesn't.
It's popular among college students where I live. I guess it initially spread among the the sizeable engineering student body, many of whom found it preferable over a Facebook-owned IM application, but less of a hassle than Signal.
I'm always suprised that people find Signal a hassle. For me, the experience is basically the same as WhatsApp's – minus the "Status" feature.
Yes, Telegram has the superior UI compared to both. But for me, if I had to name an alternative to WhatsApp, Signal is the first coming to mind. The biggest (only?) reason being the lack of e2e encryption per default for 1:1 chats and complete lack thereof for group messaging in Telegram.
And even if e2ee in groups wasn't important for me, the lack of e2ee support in the desktop client breaks the usability argument completely for me. It's such a pity, because I'd love to recommend Telegram if they'd just use some variant of the Sinal Protocol for everything, just like Matrix, XMPP and WhatsApp are doing it.
Yes, Telegram has the superior UI compared to both. But for me, if I had to name an alternative to WhatsApp, Signal is the first coming to mind. The biggest (only?) reason being the lack of e2e encryption per default for 1:1 chats and complete lack thereof for group messaging in Telegram.
And even if e2ee in groups wasn't important for me, the lack of e2ee support in the desktop client breaks the usability argument completely for me. It's such a pity, because I'd love to recommend Telegram if they'd just use some variant of the Sinal Protocol for everything, just like Matrix, XMPP and WhatsApp are doing it.
I don't personally keep in touch with people so I can't really say how it's like, but I do know that it's popular around my neck of the woods. On par with whatsapp, it feels like.
I read hacker news exclusively through Telegram channels. Yes we are here and there are many of us.
It’s very popular in Europe. I haven’t seriously used another chat app since 2015.
Active user here. There are some great channels related to my hobbies, it has proper desktop version etc.
Comparable to something like Reddit would you say?
Somewhat? I often compare it to a mix of Twitter and Reddit for people that haven't experienced IRC.
If you have experienced IRC, it's basically that. You have smaller rooms (groups) and bigger ones. Every room has their active 1%, their own rules and customs and after a while, their own inside jokes etc.
Otherwise, it's a bit like reddit because you join groups that are usually about a certain topic / niche (general programming, JavaScript, Counter Strike, cooking, what have you) and it's also a bit like twitter because there's often a "hot topic" for a day or two with small things happening in between. Also because no one in their right mind treats those chats like actual group chats, as in, you don't read all the messages you missed. After a weekend i have at least 10k "missed messages".
This comparison is also cool because it reminds you to treat telegram just like reddit and twitter: it's public basically. Anyone can join groups you're in and log every message (there's plenty bots that do that) and they can see the contents of a public group even without joining. It's not encrypted by default and frankly, barely anyone uses secret chats, if only because ppl are on their desktop half the time anyway
If you have experienced IRC, it's basically that. You have smaller rooms (groups) and bigger ones. Every room has their active 1%, their own rules and customs and after a while, their own inside jokes etc.
Otherwise, it's a bit like reddit because you join groups that are usually about a certain topic / niche (general programming, JavaScript, Counter Strike, cooking, what have you) and it's also a bit like twitter because there's often a "hot topic" for a day or two with small things happening in between. Also because no one in their right mind treats those chats like actual group chats, as in, you don't read all the messages you missed. After a weekend i have at least 10k "missed messages".
This comparison is also cool because it reminds you to treat telegram just like reddit and twitter: it's public basically. Anyone can join groups you're in and log every message (there's plenty bots that do that) and they can see the contents of a public group even without joining. It's not encrypted by default and frankly, barely anyone uses secret chats, if only because ppl are on their desktop half the time anyway
I’m not using Reddit, so cannot compare the experience, but Telegram is a messenger app, not a forum.
Not even close globally. But in countries where it's popular, it's comparable.
I find it more comparable to Discord communities.
Telegram has more than 550 million monthly active users... so yeah, lots of us.
I am a vivid Telegram user, and it is my primary method of communication with friends. The Telegram communities are so large, that you are going to find all kind of people there. (They have claimed to have 500+ million users)
I am in over 100 chat rooms of varying sizes. Ranging from groups with 100+ members, in which I usually just ignore, and check from time to time to see what is going on. Groups of 20-100 members in which more close friends keep together, and is more similar to IRC chatrooms with tech talk and the ilk, and then a then a lot of groups with 5-20 members, in which friends organize parties, going out for dinner, etc... (I organize my chat rooms into folders for ease of access)
Telegram has been my favorite form of communication because of great performance, very good sync between PC/mobile, great search (I can find messages from 5 years ago with no effort!), and ease of use. My experience with Telegram pales in comparison with any other chat program I have used for how I like to stay in touch with friends.
I am in over 100 chat rooms of varying sizes. Ranging from groups with 100+ members, in which I usually just ignore, and check from time to time to see what is going on. Groups of 20-100 members in which more close friends keep together, and is more similar to IRC chatrooms with tech talk and the ilk, and then a then a lot of groups with 5-20 members, in which friends organize parties, going out for dinner, etc... (I organize my chat rooms into folders for ease of access)
Telegram has been my favorite form of communication because of great performance, very good sync between PC/mobile, great search (I can find messages from 5 years ago with no effort!), and ease of use. My experience with Telegram pales in comparison with any other chat program I have used for how I like to stay in touch with friends.
I use Telegram regularly with friends who don't find Signal user friendly enough.
Facebook is the biggest platform for far-right content, child pornography, terrorism, whatnot.
Facebook is the biggest platform for far-right content, child pornography, terrorism, whatnot.
As far as child sexual abuse material goes, Facebook may only be number one because they do a good job of automatically detecting and reporting CSAM. I don't think it's fair to hold that against them. I've not seen anything to suggest that Facebook actually has the most CSAM either on a per Capita basis or total - only that they report the most on their platform.
How about instead, you offer me the ability to buy into your platform? Offer me the ability to use the platform, and pay a monthly fee, as opposed to seeing ads.
Popularity of a messenger hinges on it being free, and viability of ad-driven business model hinges on popularity.
Meanwhile, ad-driven model is a much more comfortable and reliable source of profit (since you are popular and free, users won’t leave, so no need to work hard fighting for customers).
Imagine if instead of three whales we had a variety of paid messengers, all forced to interoperate with each other and offer APIs for third-party client software because that’s what paying users requested.
Meanwhile, ad-driven model is a much more comfortable and reliable source of profit (since you are popular and free, users won’t leave, so no need to work hard fighting for customers).
Imagine if instead of three whales we had a variety of paid messengers, all forced to interoperate with each other and offer APIs for third-party client software because that’s what paying users requested.
I dont care how many customers the whales can support or whether they interoperate.
I'll happily pay to support not just my client but who ever wants to connect to me. This is not some big yearly cost given how cheap hardware and bandwith have become.
I'll happily pay to support not just my client but who ever wants to connect to me. This is not some big yearly cost given how cheap hardware and bandwith have become.
If your service doesn’t interoperate with others, no one will connect to you unless everyone is already using the same service.
The level of uptake of this FSB offshoot platform is surprising.
why? it is functionally supperior to the CIA offshoot platform everybody else uses.
"He may be a scoundrel, but he's our scoundrel"
Telegram clients are open source. Whats preventing people from patching out ads out of their clients ?
Telegram blocks attempts like these by saying that doing that kind of stuff is against TOS. Then they can use that excuse to have apps taken down from the play store/app store.
To receive push notifications for iOS/Android apps, you need to upload your developer keys (!!!) to Telegram push server. So they can ban clients that disable advertising.
The open source fdroid builds don't do that, instead they receive notifications another way, without google's push service.
Can you please elaborate, what 'another way'?
I know only one: keeping the app running as a service, with all associated drawbacks. The app we develop (an XMPP client) does just that.
On iOS, it is not possible at all. To make an app receive messages and notify user about them, you must use APNS, and to do that you have to upload your keys to Telegram.
I know only one: keeping the app running as a service, with all associated drawbacks. The app we develop (an XMPP client) does just that.
On iOS, it is not possible at all. To make an app receive messages and notify user about them, you must use APNS, and to do that you have to upload your keys to Telegram.
Yes, the app runs in the background. It kills the battery, but you have to compromise on that if you do not want to have google services on your phone.
Telegram users who want to avoid ads and people who want to keep their phones google free are two very different audiences, which shouldn't be conflated.
1. Too much of hassle for most people out there.
2. (hypothetical) desire to keep Telegram afloat? I would rather pay a recurring fee though than get ads, but if the choice would be "Telegram with ads" vs "No Telegram at all" (if they run out of money), I would prefer the former option.
Nothing, probably, but the vast majority of the 500m MAU all but certainly use the official client, rather than a homebrewed one.
>Telegram will not show promotional messages in your chat list, private conversations or groups. Advertising will affect only large channels - services where there is already advertising, and the support of which leads to the greatest costs on the part of Telegram.
That's really, really great. :)
That's really, really great. :)
> Turn off ad blocker
> You appear to be using an ad blocker that may prevent pages on the Telegram Ad Platform from working as expected.
> Please turn off your ad blocker or add promote.telegram.org as an exception to manage your promoted messages. > Close
Oh, well ^^
I was a Telegram user for year until I completely switched to Signal 2.5 years ago.
I'd pay 1-10€ a year for a Telegram experience with e2e and without ads.
Why can't the old WA model be used ?
> You appear to be using an ad blocker that may prevent pages on the Telegram Ad Platform from working as expected.
> Please turn off your ad blocker or add promote.telegram.org as an exception to manage your promoted messages. > Close
Oh, well ^^
I was a Telegram user for year until I completely switched to Signal 2.5 years ago.
I'd pay 1-10€ a year for a Telegram experience with e2e and without ads.
Why can't the old WA model be used ?
My guess is, because instant messaging only works with multiple people. The usfullness of an IM service is directly coupled to the amount of your peers using it. If there is no one to talk two, why bother?
Sure, you and I may be happy to pay this, and may even fork out the fee for our loved ones, but how many other people would do that?
Sure, you and I may be happy to pay this, and may even fork out the fee for our loved ones, but how many other people would do that?
Ads if you don't want to pay, no ads if you want to pay. If there is any problem with that, I fail to see it. The only thing I can really think of is that it is not economically worthwhile - the expectation is that so few people will be willing to pay or leave because of ads, that the added complexity is not worth it. You could then try to throw in some random stuff - larger file size limits, more GIFs, different skins, or whatever might work and is not too expensive - in order to motivate more people to pay, but this might again be an opportunity for a competitor who could offer your bonus stuff also to the masses that are happy with ads.
I don't know how valid it is from a data perspective, but the concern that is usually voiced in response to the idea (to disable ads after payment) is that your overall ad value declines once you provide ways for the (presumably) wealthy part of your audience to opt out.
> Sure, you and I may be happy to pay this, and may even fork out the fee for our loved ones, but how many other people would do that?
I was thinking exactly that while reading the beginning of your post. I'd be ready to accept a part of my fee is to allow others to use the service but it'd need to be balanced so freeloaders don't tip off the balance. Maybe premium stickers packs or some vanity stuff. Or they can `choose` to pay by granting access to their ad profile and marketing tracking ?
I was thinking exactly that while reading the beginning of your post. I'd be ready to accept a part of my fee is to allow others to use the service but it'd need to be balanced so freeloaders don't tip off the balance. Maybe premium stickers packs or some vanity stuff. Or they can `choose` to pay by granting access to their ad profile and marketing tracking ?
Whatsapp almost reached one billion monthly users before they changed from paid (1$/year) to free.
I was one of those! It was so little money for the amount of use I was getting out of it. I wish the aquisition by facebook had encouraged facebook to go with such a model. I'd happily pay e.g. €10/year to get rid of all the ads and "Suggested for you" junk and have a news feed that is just my friends and groups I joined again.
Not sure about the exact numbers, but there is one thing to keep in mind: a significant part of those users were in "developing markets", where the fee was never introduced in practice. WhatsApp kept granting free extensions to them until they ditched the paid plan completely. I think that their next billion or two users have also been mostly in markets that wouldn't have been subject to the fee anyway.
I was a relatively early adopter of Whatsapp and although the banner to pay 1 USD/year was shown to me, I just pressed the "use whatsapp free for a year" button whenever the popup reappeared. I never ended up paying anything to WA.
So you give a choice, either pay $5 a year, or view adverts
As others have pointed out before that requires some serious guts because the people who are well enough off to pay their way out of ads are exactly the ones that might be most attractive to show ads to.
So, not impossible at all but will need someone to take a principled stance.
So, not impossible at all but will need someone to take a principled stance.
> Why can't the old WA model be used?
I don't think WhatsApp was profitable on that model, and they also had surprisingly low costs (due to great server tech, small team) that I suspect Telegram can't match.
I don't think WhatsApp was profitable on that model, and they also had surprisingly low costs (due to great server tech, small team) that I suspect Telegram can't match.
When Facebook acquired WhatsApp I hoped that Telegram will do better, but it's been so many years now and they still don't open source everything and use their homemade cryptography. I find that really unfortunate because the app itself is really great, but not more trustworthy than WhatsApp.
You're using the cryptography alone as a means to gauge trustworthiness there, which is fair, but I'd expand the categories for trustworthiness and rearrange their ranking, please: It's a non-transnational corporation actor. That alone means I trust it magnitudes more than Whatsapp, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, discord, and all the others that I -know- are all captured by the way industry integration works.
I would argue it being even less trustworthy, with the vast majority of messages being stored in clear in closed-source servers.
I don't get how HN are working. I've submitted that exact URL 12 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=SergeAx
It also left the front page today, but for the first time I can remember a story actually made its way back to the front page after leaving it.
As far as I can see it didn't attract many upvotes in the meantime so I guess flag abuse was detected.
As far as I can see it didn't attract many upvotes in the meantime so I guess flag abuse was detected.
Me neither, if you find the answer share it please hahahah
As some other users said, this is something it had to be made to basically make some money out of an amazing tool, and I also think that you can keep your ads healthy if you moderate them. It´s fine. (:
They made their ads with dark ui pattern: an ad item pretends to be a post.
I do support Telegram on this one. They need it for their further growth and expansion. This will increase the user and brand of the ads will try to promote.
But a question to HN: why have we not seen a mass-market adoption of a P2P, non-centralised messaging system that requires no external services to work?
Mesh and other sorts of networks are cumbersome and have not reached mass-market adoption, so what (technically) is stopping a true E2E P2P platform?