Telegram is booming but needs advertisers and $700M soon(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Telegram is booming but needs advertisers and $700M soon
https://www.wsj.com/articles/telegram-app-is-booming-but-needs-advertisersand-700-million-soon-11615806001
332 comments
Telegram's clients are amazing (including the ones developed by the community, such as telega.el for Emacs). It is miles ahead of any other messenger in the UX department. Friends of mine who have (reluctantly, in some cases) tried it out quickly got stuck because of this single point.
The other thing it's got going for it is that its protocol is designed to work in low-bandwidth environments. Yeah, the protocol looks crazy - but it really does work. Imagine being on an underground train and only occasionally getting a few seconds of internet while passing a stop: Most messengers will at most start showing you a "Connecting ..." status, Telegram will do a full state sync (minus media files, of course) in the same time.
The other thing it's got going for it is that its protocol is designed to work in low-bandwidth environments. Yeah, the protocol looks crazy - but it really does work. Imagine being on an underground train and only occasionally getting a few seconds of internet while passing a stop: Most messengers will at most start showing you a "Connecting ..." status, Telegram will do a full state sync (minus media files, of course) in the same time.
Telegram actually provides a fully featured C++ library you can just include - it has a pretty good API that does most of the complex things for you.
You just register callbacks for message lists / chat messages and notifications and you're all set.
This allows people to easily build full-featured clients for pretty much any platform and it makes it easy for everyone to keep up. Very smart platform design.
I'm very disappointed that something made to be more open like Signal completely failed in this aspect and has ended being a walled garden with poor quality clients.
You just register callbacks for message lists / chat messages and notifications and you're all set.
This allows people to easily build full-featured clients for pretty much any platform and it makes it easy for everyone to keep up. Very smart platform design.
I'm very disappointed that something made to be more open like Signal completely failed in this aspect and has ended being a walled garden with poor quality clients.
Exactly, Signal creator is actively against 3rd party clients, because they use his infrastructure for free:
https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issueco...
https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issueco...
The issue was branding, not bandwidth. There’re 3rd party clients:
https://github.com/mollyim/mollyim-android
https://github.com/mollyim/mollyim-android
Marlinspike in the linked comment is clearly also disapproving of the use of Signal's servers, so it's more than branding. Unless he's blessed 'MollyIM' explicitly since, there remains some risk it could be locked out at any time.
Yes, certainly, but Telegram states officially in their FAQ, that Durov’s fortune pays for their servers and now it seems there’re creditors too. Risk are everywhere, but an unofficial opinion doesn’t alters the fact that there’re third party clients that are promoted in the official community forums.
When the foundation co-founder & CEO of the development LLC says something – and the same thing, repeatedly, when the topic comes up – that's not as weak as an 'unofficial opinion'.
Of course, it could be reversed, and if you find any more-recent official welcomes from Signal for third-party clients to use its servers, I'd love references.
Of course, it could be reversed, and if you find any more-recent official welcomes from Signal for third-party clients to use its servers, I'd love references.
No, not just branding. Read the message I linked to.
He explicitly says he doesn't want other clients to use their infra.
He explicitly says he doesn't want other clients to use their infra.
There is nothing, technically, that he can do to prevent third party clients. That's the same thing we did in the times of ICQ, AOL and MSN Messenger.
And there is an actual demand for features not provided by the official client, as stated by the amount of PRs contributed by non-Signal developers waiting in their GitHub repo, so people will continue to come with their own changes.
And there is an actual demand for features not provided by the official client, as stated by the amount of PRs contributed by non-Signal developers waiting in their GitHub repo, so people will continue to come with their own changes.
> There is nothing, technically, that he can do to prevent third party clients.
There are plenty of technical ways of detecting and blocking 3rd party clients (using both in-channel and side-channel, uh, signals); the only challenge is that it becomes a never-ending arms-race
There are plenty of technical ways of detecting and blocking 3rd party clients (using both in-channel and side-channel, uh, signals); the only challenge is that it becomes a never-ending arms-race
and the clients are open source[0], so unless the close source it, the arms race is mostly in commit speed. :)
0: https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/commits/master
0: https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/commits/master
Your link is a comment in 2016, but it’s 2021 now and there’re alternative clients using their infrastructure.
That’s my point, I’m sorry if you consider some wording five years ago is more relevant than what’s going on in present time.
That’s my point, I’m sorry if you consider some wording five years ago is more relevant than what’s going on in present time.
Are there any clients that will run on older versions of Android.
It's funny to see this towards the top of the comments here. Feels like not that long ago that Telegram updates would be downvotes on HackerNews because "you should never trust an app that designed their own encryption protocol."
As the author of the parent comment…
…yes, I am aware Telegram does not use the absolute best practices, and at the very least, I imagine it can be cracked wide open by a nation-state intelligence agency.
Which is why, for my occasional super-secret must-be-hush-hush chats, I use other clients. For my day-to-day chats? Telegram. Because, to be privileged, to be flippant: the NSA is welcome to read my texts about what I’m buying at Target this afternoon.
…yes, I am aware Telegram does not use the absolute best practices, and at the very least, I imagine it can be cracked wide open by a nation-state intelligence agency.
Which is why, for my occasional super-secret must-be-hush-hush chats, I use other clients. For my day-to-day chats? Telegram. Because, to be privileged, to be flippant: the NSA is welcome to read my texts about what I’m buying at Target this afternoon.
So weird
I personally would trust Telegram way more than even Signal for encryption.
Armchair sneering doesnt count for me
I personally would trust Telegram way more than even Signal for encryption.
Armchair sneering doesnt count for me
Why do you trust Telegram more than Signal?
It is built by an anarchist person who always refused to give out personal info of people to the point where his company was taken from him, and he ran away to France. He and his brother hired a ton of PhDs and made lots of paid challenges that no one could break their encryption. Their software is open sourced. The encryption Moxie Marlinspike uses was conveniently funded by the very US government agencies interested in breaking encryption.
https://surveillancevalley.com/blog/government-backed-privac...
https://twitter.com/durov/status/872891017418113024?s=21
Or if you want just a track record of the most RECENT bugs and backdoors that were exploited, look two months ago:
https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2021/01/21/bugs-video-chat-a...
Find me the same for Telegram!
https://surveillancevalley.com/blog/government-backed-privac...
https://twitter.com/durov/status/872891017418113024?s=21
Or if you want just a track record of the most RECENT bugs and backdoors that were exploited, look two months ago:
https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2021/01/21/bugs-video-chat-a...
Find me the same for Telegram!
That tweet you linked is from the CEO of Telegram. Seems likely he wants to sow doubt about his competitors.
He is simply pointing out what others have as well - that using the crypto whose development was financed by the very people interested in breaking it, may not be that smart.
And is the story about from Jan about vulnerabilities in Signal that are absent in Telegram also planted by him? Want to see more incidents like that?
And is the story about from Jan about vulnerabilities in Signal that are absent in Telegram also planted by him? Want to see more incidents like that?
Signal is a US company and „do not roll your own crypto“ is an NSA meme. It translates to „only use crypto we probably know how to compromise“. That doesn’t mean the algorithm itself must be wrong, it could just be that the implementation has subtle bugs.
Only if they work hard for it.
This is not about encryption; I personally do not rely much on Telegram encryption being bulletproof.
It's about the right UX choices. Speed is a first-tier feature.
It's about the right UX choices. Speed is a first-tier feature.
Telegram's UX is outstanding. Their E2E encryption (for "secret chats") is also questionable. Both are simultaneously true.
It depends on your needs.
I use Telegram like an IRC client, primarily participating in medium/large (20-200 user) group chats. In that sense, I don't really care about encryption because the channels are semi-public anyway. I just want whatever client gives me the best experience.
(On the other hand, if I were discussing sensitive topics, I'd probably pick something else.)
It depends on your needs.
I use Telegram like an IRC client, primarily participating in medium/large (20-200 user) group chats. In that sense, I don't really care about encryption because the channels are semi-public anyway. I just want whatever client gives me the best experience.
(On the other hand, if I were discussing sensitive topics, I'd probably pick something else.)
> Telegram's clients are amazing (including the ones developed by the community, such as telega.el for Emacs). It is miles ahead of any other messenger in the UX department.
Many of Telegram's official clients do not support Secret Chat, an issue which has been open for at least five years now. Their community picks up the slack.
Many of Telegram's official clients do not support Secret Chat, an issue which has been open for at least five years now. Their community picks up the slack.
Telega.el for Emacs is really cool with some very unique features.
https://github.com/zevlg/telega.el
https://github.com/zevlg/telega.el
Yes indeed I use it, it doesn't refute my statement.
Which ones don't? I used the Android client and telega, both of those do. I believe the iOS one does, too.
The web client doesn't seem to support it, or at least I can't find it -- it's definitely not in the contact/profile screen like in the Android app.
For sure: Linux.
That's because there is no support for multiple devices when you use secret chats.
That doesn't help if I just want to use one device and yet it still doesn't support secret chat.
“designed to work in low-bandwidth environments”
And I have actually experienced this, fairly frequently.
T-Mobile international roaming, at least on my provided corporate plan, is throttled to 128kbps. And Telegram works. Messages come through quickly, and it seems fairly smart about deferring media loading.
And I have actually experienced this, fairly frequently.
T-Mobile international roaming, at least on my provided corporate plan, is throttled to 128kbps. And Telegram works. Messages come through quickly, and it seems fairly smart about deferring media loading.
Yeah, I've been on occasionally shitty mobile networks in Africa for the last months and Telegram almost always works when other things don't. Experiencing this kind of connectivity for a while really is perspective-altering.
I would pay. I like Telegram too, for some reason I find myself liking it much more than WhatsApp, it feels snappier, web and desktop Telegram fells nice, and I don't need having my SmartPhone connected. Some time ago it was unthinkable due to network effects, but now many of my peers have Telegram too, even non-tech people.
WhatsApp doesn't let me login from two mobile devices. Can't use it from phone and tablet at the same. It's moronic. Telegram does, so...
You may not prefer it, but I don't think it's moronic; it was a design choice.
Whatsapp messages pass through their servers, but do not remain there. They are effectively sent from the sending device to the receiving device. This means that your messages reside on your device. When you use the desktop or web client, it's basically remote operating your phone.
This famously allowed Whatsapp to achieve massive scale with relatively few resources. [1]
Telegram messages reside on their servers. This allows for features such as those discussed above - multiple synchronized clients etc. The downside (aside from potential privacy concerns) is that it requires much larger amount of infrastructure, which presumably is one of the reasons they need $700 million.
[1] http://highscalability.com/blog/2014/3/31/how-whatsapp-grew-...
Whatsapp messages pass through their servers, but do not remain there. They are effectively sent from the sending device to the receiving device. This means that your messages reside on your device. When you use the desktop or web client, it's basically remote operating your phone.
This famously allowed Whatsapp to achieve massive scale with relatively few resources. [1]
Telegram messages reside on their servers. This allows for features such as those discussed above - multiple synchronized clients etc. The downside (aside from potential privacy concerns) is that it requires much larger amount of infrastructure, which presumably is one of the reasons they need $700 million.
[1] http://highscalability.com/blog/2014/3/31/how-whatsapp-grew-...
It's also for security reasons.
Telegram is not E2E encrypted, WhatsApp is.
Telegram has the option of E2E encrypted messages, but that then works only from one phone/PC.
Telegram is not E2E encrypted, WhatsApp is.
Telegram has the option of E2E encrypted messages, but that then works only from one phone/PC.
I don’t know how true that really is.
I have never used backup for WhatsApp but just the other day, out of the blue, every conversation from late 2017 to now that I had deleted popped back into my inbox.
Can’t explain that one easily
I have never used backup for WhatsApp but just the other day, out of the blue, every conversation from late 2017 to now that I had deleted popped back into my inbox.
Can’t explain that one easily
"This famously allowed Whatsapp to achieve massive scale with relatively few resources."
And now they've had a decade to address the issue.
And now they've had a decade to address the issue.
Whatsapp is pretty much proprietary xmpp, and xmpp handles multi-end to multi-end encryption graceously.
Not true. While WhatsApp may have started with xmpp / ejabberd at the beginning, it quickly diverted away from xmpp and has its own protocol
I wish my buddies who are hung up on Signal's E2E, and rightfully so, would at least try Telegram to see what they are missing. An E2E-default version of Telegram would put the final nails in Signal if you ask me. The decision to resist this, and they could implement it fairly beautifully for new devices like iMessage does, and the in-house MTProto protocol do seem kind of bizarre to me. But look how far it's taken them. A beautiful product.
Signal user here, on iOS and using the Mac client. What am I missing?
Give Telegram or Matrix a try. They are both miles ahead of Signal and their teams on both sides actually seem to care about openness and usability.
Signal actively discourages third-party clients and doesn't accept community contributions in most cases(not that you'd actually want to, because their codebases are trash.) We can do better.
Matrix with bridges and your own server is quite a nice experience. Have a look at beeper: https://www.beeper.com/
Signal actively discourages third-party clients and doesn't accept community contributions in most cases(not that you'd actually want to, because their codebases are trash.) We can do better.
Matrix with bridges and your own server is quite a nice experience. Have a look at beeper: https://www.beeper.com/
I get why Signal's approach can be unpopular, but I don't understand the fascination with Telegram to be honest. Sure, the Android app is nice and fluid, but if I needed to use an app that is not e2e encrypted, I can use sms, or Facebook Messenger. Both have much wider adoption than Telegram.
Facebook Messenger is tied to Facebook. Which is necessarily tied to a real name identity. Ditto for SMS. Telegram on the other hand is only minimally connected to a phone number (only need to be used once), with no real name requirements. It offers sufficient anonymity while allowing public gatherings. And of course, Facebook is much more likely to cooperate with law enforcement & national security apparatus in any given country compared to Telegram.
Telegram now has 550 million users according to the article. Facebook Messenger has 1.3 billion users - more twice as many, but I won't call that a "much wider adoption".
Telegram now has 550 million users according to the article. Facebook Messenger has 1.3 billion users - more twice as many, but I won't call that a "much wider adoption".
> I can use sms, or Facebook Messenger
A large part of the world can't afford sending images (and even videos) via SMS.
And no, Facebook Messenger is not fluid, it's laggy as fuck.
A large part of the world can't afford sending images (and even videos) via SMS.
And no, Facebook Messenger is not fluid, it's laggy as fuck.
Adding to this, Element is a great first Matrix client :) Not involved with it, just a very happy user.
https://element.io
https://element.io
I’ve been having an issue with E2E encryption in a Room on a self-hosted homeserver with ~10 users. It has to do with a user having multiple devices, I think. There’s an ongoing issue on GitHub [0]. It’s been the only downside to Element for us, so far. Other than that I’m happy with Matrix in general. Kind of a pain trying to troubleshoot decryption keys cross-country with my mom.
[0] https://github.com/vector-im/element-ios/issues/3393
[0] https://github.com/vector-im/element-ios/issues/3393
I've found that issue can be solved by opening the same chat on your multiple devices at the same time, and it will send the E2E keys across.
I'm thinking this may be a messaging issue rather than a technical bug in some cases - `Unable to decrypt: The sender's device has not sent us the keys for this message` isn't very helpful.
I think while this isn't ideal, it's important to note (for those following along) that neither Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp support end-to-end encryption across desktop and mobile, history syncing to new devices, and a self hosted OSS server with multiple client apps.
I'm thinking this may be a messaging issue rather than a technical bug in some cases - `Unable to decrypt: The sender's device has not sent us the keys for this message` isn't very helpful.
I think while this isn't ideal, it's important to note (for those following along) that neither Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp support end-to-end encryption across desktop and mobile, history syncing to new devices, and a self hosted OSS server with multiple client apps.
Ability to send pictures without lossy compression, for one. Scheduled messages, group chats that preserve history (allowing one to rotate a phone number without losing access to history). Video calls that allow one to sync the video orientation. UX that is just better designed for the lay person (at least as far as my rudimentary a/b testing goes).
- Seamless sync and backup
- 100x more people use it (I joined Signal years ago and I still have 1 actual conversation)
- The speed and the level of polish is unmatched
Of course for any serious Signal user it isn't an alternative but for many of us we only use it for postcard level anyway.
- 100x more people use it (I joined Signal years ago and I still have 1 actual conversation)
- The speed and the level of polish is unmatched
Of course for any serious Signal user it isn't an alternative but for many of us we only use it for postcard level anyway.
The problem there is I see no reason why Telegram doesn't just creep up to Facebook level intrusiveness.
They have the opportunity and a need for profit from a smaller advertising base.
I'd bet on it actually: in a few years we'll get a big fuss when Telegram reveals their new targeted advertising functionality...
They have the opportunity and a need for profit from a smaller advertising base.
I'd bet on it actually: in a few years we'll get a big fuss when Telegram reveals their new targeted advertising functionality...
We'll see. I'll leave if that happens.
For now Durov has kept his word for 7 years which is a whole lot longer than most. He was also clear from the start that he would, if necessary, find a non intrusive way to fund it and I feel he might be onto it.
For now Durov has kept his word for 7 years which is a whole lot longer than most. He was also clear from the start that he would, if necessary, find a non intrusive way to fund it and I feel he might be onto it.
Telegram just promises to behave though. Nothing enforces that.
WhatsApp was great too right up till Facebook bought it.
Anyone who buys Telegram is buying those servers and any messages you have stored on them.
WhatsApp was great too right up till Facebook bought it.
Anyone who buys Telegram is buying those servers and any messages you have stored on them.
I'm honestly not sure what I'm missing when avoiding Telegram's non-private conversations. There's no desktop client support (unlike Signal which works on a desktop mostly seamlessly, including group video) and no option at all to backup and sync conversations between devices (unlike Signal's rather limited options).
If I was alright with Telegram's non-E2EE conversations, I would prefer WhatsApp for its wider adoption among my contact base.
If I was alright with Telegram's non-E2EE conversations, I would prefer WhatsApp for its wider adoption among my contact base.
What do you mean, no desktop client support? There's a fully featured desktop client for Telegram, and I've never had my desktop clients have their sqlite database corrupt itself.
It depends on which desktop client you're using.
Telegram's native Mac app (https://macos.telegram.org/) supports E2E-encrypted secret chats. Their cross platform Qt-based app (https://desktop.telegram.org/) does not support this feature.
Notably, the experience in a Telegram secret chat behaves differently then regular chats. A secret chat is tied to one device; you can't start a secret chat on your phone and pick it up on your tablet/desktop. There's also no server-side message history. Regular (non-secret) chats don't have these limitations.
Telegram's native Mac app (https://macos.telegram.org/) supports E2E-encrypted secret chats. Their cross platform Qt-based app (https://desktop.telegram.org/) does not support this feature.
Notably, the experience in a Telegram secret chat behaves differently then regular chats. A secret chat is tied to one device; you can't start a secret chat on your phone and pick it up on your tablet/desktop. There's also no server-side message history. Regular (non-secret) chats don't have these limitations.
Windows user here: secret chats are not supported on the desktop client at all.
That's my only gripe. The rest of the app is incredible, and absolutely the most delightful app I use every day. I cite it often as an example of a native app that beats the pants off of anything Electron-based, it's just so damn fast.
That's my only gripe. The rest of the app is incredible, and absolutely the most delightful app I use every day. I cite it often as an example of a native app that beats the pants off of anything Electron-based, it's just so damn fast.
Just FYI - they're not supported in the official tdesktop client, but they are supposed in some third party ones, e.g. Unigram (if you're on Windows 10).
I was trying to emphasize this further which is why I (ninja) edited in the second paragraph, but unfortunately it still isn't very obvious:
> when avoiding Telegram's non-private conversations
> when avoiding Telegram's non-private conversations
Kind of reads like "not sure what I'm missing by avoiding Telegram's non-private conversations" rather than the intended "taking a need for e2e as a given, I don't understand..."
> The decision to resist this […] and the in-house MTProto protocol do seem kind of bizarre to me
It's so bizarre indeed that it actually looks suspicious.
It's so bizarre indeed that it actually looks suspicious.
I’ll probably use whichever of them manages to allow me creating accounts and logging in without handing over my phone number.
Last I tried, telegram desktop on Linux didn't support e2e encrypted chats which is sad.
telegram desktop doesn't support e2e chats at all. it's a mobile only feature, and it doesn't sync between devices, even between phones.
Actually the Mac client supports it for some reason.
Having to QR-code into a web-app is quite a pain. I wish we didn't tie identities to a phone number like that. Messenger offers even more seamless "handoff" between form-factors, and that's why I find myself preferring it. It's easy for web state to go away, so I find myself having to log back in more often than I'd like. Plus, you can't log in when the phone's out of battery. I really like how snappy Telegram's mobile clients are. I like their stickers (probably the most fun of any chat app these days) and their link preview is quite good. So I'm rooting for them.
Only quibble I have with Telegram is their “find nearby” feature, it’s clearly abused by bad actors to funnel users to porn, so my family sees the whole app as not family friendly, bec they don’t want their tweens and teens with phones, that are mostly locked down, having this loophole. There no way to turn it off, or lock it behind parental control, so until then we’re still stuck on WhatsApp.
Good thing your family has no access to the internet, otherwise they might be exposed porn in google image search.
That’s a very reductive take... especially considering I stated that their internet access is pretty limited.
Just because most Americans or even most people in the world think the vileness of R-rated stuff is inevitable and harmless doesn’t make them right. It absolutely warps your view of humanity and imho many ppl today suffer from PTSD and don’t even realize it, just thinking their altered brain chemistry is a normal part of life. The trauma that a constant diet of porn and violence does to your brain is significant and damaging, whether consumed in a pub in 1700s Germany or a random website today.
Just because most Americans or even most people in the world think the vileness of R-rated stuff is inevitable and harmless doesn’t make them right. It absolutely warps your view of humanity and imho many ppl today suffer from PTSD and don’t even realize it, just thinking their altered brain chemistry is a normal part of life. The trauma that a constant diet of porn and violence does to your brain is significant and damaging, whether consumed in a pub in 1700s Germany or a random website today.
Just deny location access to the app.
There won't be ads in 1-1 or groups.
There will be ads in channels that opt in (but those already have sponsored posts in some form already often, only manually inserted.)
So, some will say: how long before they change their terms again and the ui is plastered with ads?
We'll see. So far Durov has kept his words to a degree that few others have.
Edit: I also think Telegram has dropped the cryptocurrency-idea now.
There will be ads in channels that opt in (but those already have sponsored posts in some form already often, only manually inserted.)
So, some will say: how long before they change their terms again and the ui is plastered with ads?
We'll see. So far Durov has kept his words to a degree that few others have.
Edit: I also think Telegram has dropped the cryptocurrency-idea now.
As I understood it, there will be official ads in channels. Channels already do ads, but Telegram will step in to be an intermediary and take a cut. So from the end user perspective, nothing will change at all.
I love Desktop Telegram for many reasons but mostly because it's Open Source: https://github.com/telegramdesktop/tdesktop
[deleted]
its so crazy to me how big Telegram is to crypto, while there are people who only know about Telegram for giant conspiracy groups like Q-anon which I never run across
I'm an early adopter for telegram, and I'd be glad to give them some money.
I signed up in 2014, basically the first or second time it hit HN, and over time, I've built out a pretty decent social network on there, and run a dozen or so specialty community chats. I'd be glad to pay them something, 25 a year or so, even if I don't get anything special from it (though, if I did want something, it'd be better access to support if I should need it), just as part of making the service sustainable.
It'd made coordination in my life so much easier, and I legitimately cannot fathom going thru the pandemic without it, it's been my social lifeline.
Mostly I love it because its a desktop has parity environment, I literally sit in front of a computer 12+ hours a day, why do I want to limit myself to a phone-only service.
I signed up in 2014, basically the first or second time it hit HN, and over time, I've built out a pretty decent social network on there, and run a dozen or so specialty community chats. I'd be glad to pay them something, 25 a year or so, even if I don't get anything special from it (though, if I did want something, it'd be better access to support if I should need it), just as part of making the service sustainable.
It'd made coordination in my life so much easier, and I legitimately cannot fathom going thru the pandemic without it, it's been my social lifeline.
Mostly I love it because its a desktop has parity environment, I literally sit in front of a computer 12+ hours a day, why do I want to limit myself to a phone-only service.
Same. I've started moving away since a few months, though, because the revenue model was not happening and I can see how well it works compared to even a big commercial undertaking like Facebook messenger or Slack. The software development alone must cost many millions, not to mention the movies people are sharing actively.
It is (was?) getting super super fishy, given that everything is plain text (they have some tricks to claim it's not, but the bottom line is that they can read all your chats except that experimental "secret" chat or two you might have). If I can start to pay for the service, perhaps it's worth considering, though the lack of encryption is almost equally worrying. The branding is privacy, but the reality is the exact opposite, and while there used to be hope that they would eventually implement it, I've given up on any encryption being forthcoming by now.
It is (was?) getting super super fishy, given that everything is plain text (they have some tricks to claim it's not, but the bottom line is that they can read all your chats except that experimental "secret" chat or two you might have). If I can start to pay for the service, perhaps it's worth considering, though the lack of encryption is almost equally worrying. The branding is privacy, but the reality is the exact opposite, and while there used to be hope that they would eventually implement it, I've given up on any encryption being forthcoming by now.
The fact is, a majority of what I'm talking about, I have zero care if the service can see it. There is some stuff that I do want privacy, for that I have secret chats, with the limits inherent to it.
Perhaps I'm alone, but I never really wanted a secret chat service, I merely wanted a modern AIM, with first class mobile and desktop support.
Perhaps I'm alone, but I never really wanted a secret chat service, I merely wanted a modern AIM, with first class mobile and desktop support.
Quickly searching your chat history, going through all your contacts and group chats, 8 years back, without the need to downloading all that history to your device and building a search index first is a killer feature. Wouldn't it be impossible to implement without trusting the server with plaintext?
I wouldn't mind not having that feature of searching so far back instantly on a new device. How often do you login to a new device and want to immediately instantly search back to the beginning of time? I get that it's nice but... is that necessary?
There are various solutions to the problem of storing and searching history with different trade-offs. One of them is having the server store and be able to read everything since the dawn of time. I'm not a big fan of this one.
There are various solutions to the problem of storing and searching history with different trade-offs. One of them is having the server store and be able to read everything since the dawn of time. I'm not a big fan of this one.
Communicating with the majority of my friends through telegram, and having access to the records of all of our conversations, has revolutionised my usage with computing. I use the "saved messages" (previously messaging yourself) to act as an append only log of info I need to search, and unlike emailing myself the UX is actually good. Search is extremely fast, and the fact I can see all the photos I ever sent someone has come in handy a huge number of times
For this reason alone, I can't really see myself switching to an amnesiac client... not unless something else came along that has the ease of use of making all this accessible for me.
For this reason alone, I can't really see myself switching to an amnesiac client... not unless something else came along that has the ease of use of making all this accessible for me.
That's not what I'm saying at all? (Edit: ah maybe I understand the confusion. I meant "to a new device and want to immediately instantly search back to the beginning of time" literally the way I wrote it, so if you give it a little while to download history and decrypt it upon first use then it can work the way you want from then on. /edit)
Look at Wire, I can instantly search for arbitrary parts of words (no indexing going on as far as I can tell) and it returns results somewhere between instantly and a second or two depending on how far down the thousands upon thousands of messages the result is. It's end to end encrypted and doesn't use any homomorpic encryption magic (not sure if that's production-ready yet, but if it is, they don't use it here). It's all local and in a browser at that, no need for some special optimized C code either.
There are definitely solutions here that support exactly what you want without requiring plaintext server access. We just need to use them.
Look at Wire, I can instantly search for arbitrary parts of words (no indexing going on as far as I can tell) and it returns results somewhere between instantly and a second or two depending on how far down the thousands upon thousands of messages the result is. It's end to end encrypted and doesn't use any homomorpic encryption magic (not sure if that's production-ready yet, but if it is, they don't use it here). It's all local and in a browser at that, no need for some special optimized C code either.
There are definitely solutions here that support exactly what you want without requiring plaintext server access. We just need to use them.
Yeah, I also admin a few topical groups of 10-40 people with a few friends, and the level of engagement I've gotten is insane. I've never had a long-term group chat with so much content sharing, long-form opinions, etc, and I credit Telegram's UX and desktop clients for most of that engagement.
In many ways, it reminds me of the Web 0.x days on which the HN crowd so frequently reminisces.
In many ways, it reminds me of the Web 0.x days on which the HN crowd so frequently reminisces.
It reminds me of how IRC used to be, in many ways Telegram is the idealized lovechild of IRC and AIM, it has the best of both worlds.
Would you be willing to describe more about how you engage with this service? I like the service but haven't found many opportunities to use it.
Did you move the "specialty community chats" over from another site like Reddit? Do you talk with people you know IRL on it? Mainly just wondering how you built out a social network for yourself on Telegram.
just wondering thanks!
Did you move the "specialty community chats" over from another site like Reddit? Do you talk with people you know IRL on it? Mainly just wondering how you built out a social network for yourself on Telegram.
just wondering thanks!
They were communities that formed organically on the service from people with otherwise shared interests. While we recruited users by word of mouth and from other services, we've formed our own community on the service.
I do indeed talk with many people on it that I otherwise know in real life, often it goes the other way, I meet people via the service, then we eventually meet in real life.
Most, but not all, are furry fandom oriented, and telegram really fills a hole left by the closure of other instant messaging services. To give you an idea, I run about a dozen chats on there, with around 1400 unique users.
If telegram were to go away, many of us would move to discord, IRC, or a mix of both.
The community has the ability to host its own services, and I've given thought what to do if a shutdown looks likely. Had the telegram server side code been open sourced, we'd likely spin up our own service. While we do have the skills internally to reimplement the server side components it'd be a pretty large amount if work to do so. My hope is that if TG did shut down, they'd open source their service side implementation.
I do indeed talk with many people on it that I otherwise know in real life, often it goes the other way, I meet people via the service, then we eventually meet in real life.
Most, but not all, are furry fandom oriented, and telegram really fills a hole left by the closure of other instant messaging services. To give you an idea, I run about a dozen chats on there, with around 1400 unique users.
If telegram were to go away, many of us would move to discord, IRC, or a mix of both.
The community has the ability to host its own services, and I've given thought what to do if a shutdown looks likely. Had the telegram server side code been open sourced, we'd likely spin up our own service. While we do have the skills internally to reimplement the server side components it'd be a pretty large amount if work to do so. My hope is that if TG did shut down, they'd open source their service side implementation.
I 100% agree. I've gotten so much out of this service and wouldn't at all mind giving back.
The founder's response to the article:
Why users shouldn’t worry about ads on Telegram
I read an article that cautioned users from switching to Telegram from other apps, because "Telegram is going to introduce ads". This is misleading for at least 3 reasons:
1. There will be no ads in chats on Telegram. Users who rely on Telegram as a messaging app, not a social network, will never see ads. Private chats and group chats are and will always be ad-free. As I outlined in December, ads are being considered only in large one-to-many channels (like this one), which do not exist in any other messaging app. So users ditching older apps for Telegram won’t increase the number of ads in their lives.
2. User data will not be used to target ads. We believe that collecting private data from users to target ads the way WhatsApp-Facebook do is immoral. We like the approach of privacy-conscious services like DuckDuckGo: monetizing services without collecting information about users. So if we introduce ads in one-to-many-channels, they will be contextual – based on the topic of the channel, not targeted based on any user data.
3. We are fixing ads that are already here. In most markets, content creators on Telegram already monetize their content by selling promotional posts in their channels. This is a chaotic market with multiple third-party ad networks pushing intrusive ads that create a negative user experience. We want to fix this situation by offering a privacy-conscious alternative for channel owners.
Users will be able to opt out of ads, but I do think that privacy-conscious ads are a good way for channel owners to monetize their efforts – as an alternative to donations or subscriptions, which we are also working to offer them.
Our end goal is to establish a new class of content creators – one that is financially sustainable and free to choose the strategy that is best for their subscribers. Traditional social networks have exploited users and publishers for far too long with excessive data collection and manipulative algorithms. It’s time to change this.
https://t.me/PavelDurovs/107
Why users shouldn’t worry about ads on Telegram
I read an article that cautioned users from switching to Telegram from other apps, because "Telegram is going to introduce ads". This is misleading for at least 3 reasons:
1. There will be no ads in chats on Telegram. Users who rely on Telegram as a messaging app, not a social network, will never see ads. Private chats and group chats are and will always be ad-free. As I outlined in December, ads are being considered only in large one-to-many channels (like this one), which do not exist in any other messaging app. So users ditching older apps for Telegram won’t increase the number of ads in their lives.
2. User data will not be used to target ads. We believe that collecting private data from users to target ads the way WhatsApp-Facebook do is immoral. We like the approach of privacy-conscious services like DuckDuckGo: monetizing services without collecting information about users. So if we introduce ads in one-to-many-channels, they will be contextual – based on the topic of the channel, not targeted based on any user data.
3. We are fixing ads that are already here. In most markets, content creators on Telegram already monetize their content by selling promotional posts in their channels. This is a chaotic market with multiple third-party ad networks pushing intrusive ads that create a negative user experience. We want to fix this situation by offering a privacy-conscious alternative for channel owners.
Users will be able to opt out of ads, but I do think that privacy-conscious ads are a good way for channel owners to monetize their efforts – as an alternative to donations or subscriptions, which we are also working to offer them.
Our end goal is to establish a new class of content creators – one that is financially sustainable and free to choose the strategy that is best for their subscribers. Traditional social networks have exploited users and publishers for far too long with excessive data collection and manipulative algorithms. It’s time to change this.
https://t.me/PavelDurovs/107
> User data will not be used to target ads.
I actually prefer personalized (targeted) ads, as long as it is a company I trust with my data. And they generate more revenue so they would need fewer ads.
I realize people will argue that they don't generate more revenue, but if that were true then how has this whole industry developed around them?
By tossing out personalized ads we are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
And there are so many truly nasty things going on on the Internet, how has killing personalized ads become one of the defining battles of our times? Heck, even just looking at my ISP the list of nasty things they are doing without much push back or notice is scary.
I actually prefer personalized (targeted) ads, as long as it is a company I trust with my data. And they generate more revenue so they would need fewer ads.
I realize people will argue that they don't generate more revenue, but if that were true then how has this whole industry developed around them?
By tossing out personalized ads we are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
And there are so many truly nasty things going on on the Internet, how has killing personalized ads become one of the defining battles of our times? Heck, even just looking at my ISP the list of nasty things they are doing without much push back or notice is scary.
Most of the nasty things around the internet can be traced back to personalized ads.
But again you are conflating the irresponsible handling of my personal data - eg. my ISP collects and sells my personal data without my authorization - with personalized ads.
There are lots of companies that have a history of never selling, losing, leaking etc. their users' data, such as Apple & Google. So why is it one of the defining battles of our times to force Google etc. to show me less relevant (and therefore more) ads, versus, say, stopping my ISP from its obviously irresponsible practices?
There are lots of companies that have a history of never selling, losing, leaking etc. their users' data, such as Apple & Google. So why is it one of the defining battles of our times to force Google etc. to show me less relevant (and therefore more) ads, versus, say, stopping my ISP from its obviously irresponsible practices?
Both of Apple and Google are leaking my data into prism. I don't care about ad personalization as much as I hate tracking. These are related, but not one and the same.
I think personalized ads are overvalued and their price is driven up by either global conglomerates that are looking to make vast amounts of money from small margins or startups with VC cash to burn. I've never heard an organic business success story about adwords.
I think personalized ads are overvalued and their price is driven up by either global conglomerates that are looking to make vast amounts of money from small margins or startups with VC cash to burn. I've never heard an organic business success story about adwords.
Not sure I follow you. Tons of companies make money from digital advertising - most from ad networks (it's pretty hard for a startup to run their own). Much as most consumer startups would like to abandon advertising and just charge for their product/service, it is extremely hard to get people to pay for things.
And why are you against PRISM?
>I realize people will argue that they don't generate more revenue, but if that were true then how has this whole industry developed around them?
If it were so obvious that targeted ads increase revenue, you’d think that the advertising industry would be able to prove it. They can’t.
If it were so obvious that targeted ads increase revenue, you’d think that the advertising industry would be able to prove it. They can’t.
I find this unlikely. If I had a random sampling of ads shown to me, 50% would be for women, and the majority wouldn't even be in English. I definitely exist in some relatively small demographic, where the majority of any non targeted scatter shot would be annoying noise.
You're mixing up relevance and efficacy. Just because an ad is relevant doesn’t mean you’re more likely to buy. And it’s that second part, efficacy, that the ad industry can’t prove.
To you, it’s obviously superior. But if it were obviously generating more revenue, the ad industry would easily be able to prove it. They can’t.
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/advertising-part-1/
To you, it’s obviously superior. But if it were obviously generating more revenue, the ad industry would easily be able to prove it. They can’t.
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/advertising-part-1/
> doesn’t mean you’re more likely to buy.
I know the chances goes to 0% if it's for authentic, period correct, women's laderhozen. If it's a book about data science, then there's a good chance I'll click through. Of course, this is all anecdotal, especially since I always had ad block on back in the days before targeted ads, and have never really been subjected to ads that's weren't somehow related to me or the immediate context. If you've ever been around a child, you know how much targeted ads can work. They want the toys that they see. Showing them ads of Bentleys won't result in any sales.
I would recommend talking to someone that does A/B testing.
I know the chances goes to 0% if it's for authentic, period correct, women's laderhozen. If it's a book about data science, then there's a good chance I'll click through. Of course, this is all anecdotal, especially since I always had ad block on back in the days before targeted ads, and have never really been subjected to ads that's weren't somehow related to me or the immediate context. If you've ever been around a child, you know how much targeted ads can work. They want the toys that they see. Showing them ads of Bentleys won't result in any sales.
I would recommend talking to someone that does A/B testing.
>I actually prefer personalized (targeted) ads, as long as it is a company I trust with my data.
Can you name an ad company you personally would trust?
Can you name an ad company you personally would trust?
Those are the types of promises one should never trust profit-seaking enterprise to keep, though.
The only way to to be accountable to users is to remove the profit motive, or charge a fee to use.
The only way to to be accountable to users is to remove the profit motive, or charge a fee to use.
I agree.
Would that be enough revenue? The article doesn't list yearly costs but implies it's a lot with $1bb in debt needed (also do they advertise at scale to fund growth? that would be big source of $ that would be worth the cost).
Maybe if they really do grow 1:many channels to actually be competitive to FB products they could charge businesses for API access to provide customer support & empower company:1 user messaging.
Kind of more like Twitter which doesn't have a ton of user data to target ads as well - though Twitter does allow audience matching, if Telegram allowed matching to user phones that would be valuable.
Maybe if they really do grow 1:many channels to actually be competitive to FB products they could charge businesses for API access to provide customer support & empower company:1 user messaging.
Kind of more like Twitter which doesn't have a ton of user data to target ads as well - though Twitter does allow audience matching, if Telegram allowed matching to user phones that would be valuable.
Do they really need advertisers? I'm not sure why all these companies think the whatsapp route isn't possible. People are happy to pay a small yearly subscription for apps if they're truly doing something useful. While I don't personally use telegram, I'd argue it falls into the category of "useful enough to pay for".
I’ve used Telegram for years now, along with almost all my family and friends. I’m a huge fan of it, and it’s basically the only IM I use anymore (other than Signal with some tech friends).
If Telegram adds ads, rather than offer us a chance to just pay them, I’ll delete it instantly and push everyone I know to do the same.
I absolutely despise ads of any kind, and go to a decent amount of effort to block them from appearing on any device in my household. I’m totally happy to (and do) pay for useful services/content but if you don’t give me the choice of paying and just stick ads in it then it’ll disappear off my devices instantly.
If Telegram adds ads, rather than offer us a chance to just pay them, I’ll delete it instantly and push everyone I know to do the same.
I absolutely despise ads of any kind, and go to a decent amount of effort to block them from appearing on any device in my household. I’m totally happy to (and do) pay for useful services/content but if you don’t give me the choice of paying and just stick ads in it then it’ll disappear off my devices instantly.
You're in the minority and pretty much exercising your first-world privileges to dictate what you think the service should do. It's intended to work for everyone across the world, no matter how poor, and I'm 100% sure people from India or Brazil would leave it completely if they had to pay to use the app.
Having non-targeted ads and, potentially, premium features that you can pay for is an optimal middle ground for an app of this size.
Having non-targeted ads and, potentially, premium features that you can pay for is an optimal middle ground for an app of this size.
[deleted]
I would not mind them monetizing large public channels or selling sticker packs. If I ever see ads in my 1:1 or small groups, though, that's the end.
Hulu once wrote about how, by offering a higher cost plan without ads, they removed a lot of the complaints about their service
I've always wondered if FB offered a similar option -- $5 or $10 a month to opt out of all adds and tracking -- if a lot of the complaints about their service would also disappear.
I've always wondered if FB offered a similar option -- $5 or $10 a month to opt out of all adds and tracking -- if a lot of the complaints about their service would also disappear.
Facebook does offer a paid option for “companies”, called Workplace. IIRC, it costs $3 per active user per month. I don’t know about feature parity with the surveillance based facebook.com. Of course, Workplace cannot be used with random people that one may interact with across different spheres of life.
Some did the math - the price Facebook would need to charge every user would be $11 a month. Sorry I can't remember WHERE I read it though.
That number seems wildly off. Facebook's annual revenue for 2020 was $85.97 Billion[1]. With 2.8 Billion monthly active users, they'd need to charge $3 a month to exceed that number.
[1]: https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/...
[1]: https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/...
In the US it's much higher. Many users provide practically no revenue to FB (presumably FB wants the growth for the future).
https://www.adexchanger.com/platforms/facebook-made-almost-2...
https://www.adexchanger.com/platforms/facebook-made-almost-2...
Found the original article, I hope this helps :)
https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/15/would-it-make-us-love-or-h...
https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/15/would-it-make-us-love-or-h...
Thanks for digging it up! It did help. As Slymon99 had pointed out, Facebook doesn't earn the same amount from each user. Something I hadn't taken into account.
it's from their quarterly financial reports. rough estimate. for developing markets they generate about 2$ per user. and in developed markets like $7 per user.
[deleted]
When Facebook bought WhatsApp for 20 Billion USD, WhatsApp had about 1 Billion users, or slightly less. So that's at least 20 USD per user that Facebook paid.
Are you happy with services that have ads, but give the option to remove them for a subscription fee?
I prefer to word it slightly differently - have a paid service that offers a free ad-supported version.
The danger, of course, is that once you separate it out like that you quickly realize that the advertisers want the paying customers, not the freeloaders and so ads encroach on the he payment plans, too.
The danger, of course, is that once you separate it out like that you quickly realize that the advertisers want the paying customers, not the freeloaders and so ads encroach on the he payment plans, too.
Not the OP but I'm coming from what sounds like the same place.
In theory yes but does the ad SDK used by the app still gather data on me, even though the ads are turned off/app is paid for? Without clear indication that it will not, the answer for me is 'no'.
In theory yes but does the ad SDK used by the app still gather data on me, even though the ads are turned off/app is paid for? Without clear indication that it will not, the answer for me is 'no'.
Cool! Thanks for the reply - so you'd feel much more comfortable with a subscription to opt out of all tracking and ads?
Yeah, if I could reasonably verify that the tracking was not occurring. Unfortunately in today's environment, trust is also an issue.
Absolutely. I gladly pay for YouTube Premium, Subscribe to Twitch streamers I like to remove ads there, and other services that do an ad-supported free tier than a premium ad-free tier.
Other replies to me are reading me wrong, I didn't say "I hate ads therefore I believe no one should ever use ads", I said "I hate ads and would happily pay for me to personally not see them". Telegram can fill their apps with ads if they want, for those that can't/won't pay, as long as there's an option for us to pay and not see them.
Other replies to me are reading me wrong, I didn't say "I hate ads therefore I believe no one should ever use ads", I said "I hate ads and would happily pay for me to personally not see them". Telegram can fill their apps with ads if they want, for those that can't/won't pay, as long as there's an option for us to pay and not see them.
[deleted]
i have zero problems with this kind of monetization. i mean, that's why i pay for youtube and spotify -- i wanna support the services/content creators in some way, but i abhor ads.
Don't most you tubers and Spotify channels have patreons?
some do and i do pay for those -- but you can't really support every single channel you watch (at least for me, youtube replaced normal tv).
so paying for youtube premium gives me an ad-free experience while also helping content creators.
so paying for youtube premium gives me an ad-free experience while also helping content creators.
You’re essentially not helping the YouTube creators from the numbers they’ve given on their payout from Premium. It is incredibly small.
probably as small as the money they would get if i was watching ads. but instead of watching them with an adblocker, i just use yt premium.
as i said, i do pay for my fav creators on patreons, because if i started paying for all of them, i wouldn't have money to do anything else.
as i said, i do pay for my fav creators on patreons, because if i started paying for all of them, i wouldn't have money to do anything else.
Ah I think I confused things. I must’ve responded thinking you were one of the people saying Spotify is essentially worthless to artists. Which is true in a financial sense like YT equivalent things, but yeah, you support in other ways.
I wonder if you're typical though. Many people will likely be using it along with other IM apps to communicate with colleagues/friends/family and balk at paying even marginal amounts. Perhaps an ad supported model with ad free premium, or free to receive, but pay to send over x messages a month etc.
Whatever they decide they'll likely annoy lots of their users.
Whatever they decide they'll likely annoy lots of their users.
>I absolutely despise ads of any kind
Can the business that pays your bills survive without ads?
Can the business that pays your bills survive without ads?
> I absolutely despise ads of any kind, and go to a decent amount of effort to block them from appearing on any device in my household
No one cares, my man. This position is so off the grid that your anti-ad cruzade will likely have 0 impact in the real world.
No one cares, my man. This position is so off the grid that your anti-ad cruzade will likely have 0 impact in the real world.
Although I suspect Discord is still some way from profitability, it's monetisation strategy seems to be working well (charge subscription for premium membership with small features like custom emojis, animated profile pics, better audio quality). A surprising amount of people go for it.
Telegram has many nerdy hobby communities which could buy the cosmetics or whatever and subsidise the service for the normal users.
Telegram has many nerdy hobby communities which could buy the cosmetics or whatever and subsidise the service for the normal users.
A thing that a lot of people pay for is the better video screen sharing quality. People are happy to have "just about okay" for free, and "good" for a subscription fee.
+1 to this. I give Discord something like 5 bucks a month for 1080p video streaming at 60 FPS
There's an "unlocked" 4K one if you want to pay $10 a month but I still only use a 1080p (at 144Hz) monitor, so I'm very happy to pay the small amount
There's an "unlocked" 4K one if you want to pay $10 a month but I still only use a 1080p (at 144Hz) monitor, so I'm very happy to pay the small amount
I use Telegram a lot and would gladly pay for it. However, that route is not so easy. People in Latin American countries can't really afford to pay for apps. If they have to choose between a free WhatsApp (who everybody uses) and a fee (which can be high in real terms for poorer countries) they will choose WhatsApp.
They can also do what companies like Steam and Netflix do, charge a differentiated fee by country. Some games which cost 20 US dollars might cost less than 2 US dollars in countries like Argentina (Steam)
They can also do what companies like Steam and Netflix do, charge a differentiated fee by country. Some games which cost 20 US dollars might cost less than 2 US dollars in countries like Argentina (Steam)
This is basically why Facebook doesn't offer a free option either, they make hardly anything from third world countries per user, but prob $50+ per year from USA users.
So - third world countries can't pay a subscription, and for USA its just not worth it because hardly anyone would pay $50+ a year to use Facebook.
Catch 22.
So - third world countries can't pay a subscription, and for USA its just not worth it because hardly anyone would pay $50+ a year to use Facebook.
Catch 22.
> less than 2 USD [per month]
How about 2USD/year? WhatsApp ran on 1 until Facebook bought it.
I did the math at the time: with the users per server and separate user stats they were publishing, each employee could be paid very, very generously. Don't quote me on it but I think it was something like half or a quarter million per year. Yes, they were small and growing, as you grow you get more overhead as you try new things like eg. business customers or whatever, so maybe it can't be 1/year anymore (also because a decade of inflation happened in the meantime), but you can get very close to that or choose to operate in low and middle income countries at break-even or a small loss. I wouldn't find that unfair (as someone who earns in the top 1% of worldwide incomes, household income like 150k/year -- yes I'm looking into how to put that boatload to good use -- and who would be paying the compensatory high price).
How about 2USD/year? WhatsApp ran on 1 until Facebook bought it.
I did the math at the time: with the users per server and separate user stats they were publishing, each employee could be paid very, very generously. Don't quote me on it but I think it was something like half or a quarter million per year. Yes, they were small and growing, as you grow you get more overhead as you try new things like eg. business customers or whatever, so maybe it can't be 1/year anymore (also because a decade of inflation happened in the meantime), but you can get very close to that or choose to operate in low and middle income countries at break-even or a small loss. I wouldn't find that unfair (as someone who earns in the top 1% of worldwide incomes, household income like 150k/year -- yes I'm looking into how to put that boatload to good use -- and who would be paying the compensatory high price).
This trope keeps being repeated. It isn’t true. Whatsapp was on and off charging iPhone users $1 one time vs being free. Android users got the first year free then a small fraction paid $1 once or $1/year.
Most probably estimates are that 5% of Android users ever paid. While a bigger possibly majority fraction paid $1 for the iPhone app.
It wasn’t sustainable.
Most probably estimates are that 5% of Android users ever paid. While a bigger possibly majority fraction paid $1 for the iPhone app.
It wasn’t sustainable.
> However, that route is not so easy. People in Latin American countries can't really afford to pay for apps.
AdGuard and Cloudflare (at least for Warp+) adjust their monthly and annual subscription rates based on location.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index
AdGuard and Cloudflare (at least for Warp+) adjust their monthly and annual subscription rates based on location.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index
This incentivizes inequality. I live in Mexico, earning 10x more than most, yet I could pay less.
Yeah. Similarly, people pay for many services, Apple, Netflix, these, by switching locations. It isn’t exactly fair either for people on the poverty line in the US to pay the US prices when other places don’t have to.
It also improves affordability for those that don't make 10x the national average.
How much money does whatsapp actually get from people in those countries? I was under the impression that ad revenue from third world users was very low. How much would it be to charge them the same amount they would get from ads?
A paid telegram would be crippled from large part userbase. I would not be able to convince anyone from friends and family to use it if it were paid - they can't see the value before installing.
Without them I would not pay for it as well.
Without them I would not pay for it as well.
I don't see that as being a hurdle. You make the first year free which, IIRC, is what whatsapp did.
It would make it a hurdle for the young userbase. When I started using Whatsapp I was ~16, and didn't have access to a credit card or any other way to pay for a yearly subscription (and I'm not sure if my parents would have okayed it).
WhatsApp made every year free for 90%+ of Android users. Maybe 95%+. It is hard to find people who paid for Android Whatsapp. Even more so paying more than once.
So that doesn’t work to make money.
So that doesn’t work to make money.
it's quite "easy" to solve that problem - you as the person who wants to convince others to use, would pay up front for the app for them.
To the family member, it's free (of course, you do tell them you're paying). But when they find that it's good, they would also pay to recommend it to their friends.
To the family member, it's free (of course, you do tell them you're paying). But when they find that it's good, they would also pay to recommend it to their friends.
Or you have value-add services available by subscription
> “A project of our size needs at least a few hundred million dollars per year to keep going”
They have 550M MAU, using a freemium model and assuming a 1% payment conversion, that's 5.5M monthly paying users. With a price ranging $1 to $10, that can be $66M ~ $660M ARR, at least they can try.
They have 550M MAU, using a freemium model and assuming a 1% payment conversion, that's 5.5M monthly paying users. With a price ranging $1 to $10, that can be $66M ~ $660M ARR, at least they can try.
That envelope maths might explain why they're pinning their hopes on VC FOMO cash injections to explore more speculative revenue generation models.
1% conversion to paid at $120/year sounds high for a consumer-focused app particularly popular in developing countries whose competitors are free and whose competitive advantage is supposed to be that the app doesn't know who you are. And that's apparently less than they need to pay the bills, never mind justify their valuation.
1% conversion to paid at $120/year sounds high for a consumer-focused app particularly popular in developing countries whose competitors are free and whose competitive advantage is supposed to be that the app doesn't know who you are. And that's apparently less than they need to pay the bills, never mind justify their valuation.
100% agree
"some" people are happy to do that. Some people just don't want to pay for software regardless of anything else.
I have friends who had switched to other messaging apps instead of paying WhatsApp 1€/year or whatever it was, and by any measure I live in a rich country and paying 1€/year for my friends would have been pretty much completely irrelevant economically.
I have friends who had switched to other messaging apps instead of paying WhatsApp 1€/year or whatever it was, and by any measure I live in a rich country and paying 1€/year for my friends would have been pretty much completely irrelevant economically.
This is part of the issue. Audience. Mass consumer does not know and/or does not care. If that is the case, the company can easily determine that Zoidberg approach of 'Why not both' is very rational, if annoying to people like me.
We live in a world where you can find almost any computer service for free. Not everyone is like lazy americans willing to take the credit card out at any road bump. They will find a service that does the same for free. I can barely convince my friends with that mindset to come to Telegram when they already majorly use Messenger. Not only do they need an incentive to switch to Telegram, adding a fee to use the platform would simply kill the app. There are many ways to monetize services that don't require users to pay just to join, and this is the way forward even though it's meeting resistance from companies, it will win in the long run. Don't fight it, work with it and learn to take advantage of it instead.
Charging for everyone will hamper network effects, chraging for poweruser features should still be fine. The should charge for the things that are actually costing them the money, like long term storage of big files
Especially when there's Telegram groups that are charging $10/mo to get into haha.
Advertising and privacy don't mix.
e: I was wrong, it's $20/mo (wip.co)
Advertising and privacy don't mix.
e: I was wrong, it's $20/mo (wip.co)
> Advertising and privacy don't mix.
Targeted advertising and privacy don't mix. Context-based advertising is fine for the privacy. But it may not be fine if you don't like to be manipulated.
Targeted advertising and privacy don't mix. Context-based advertising is fine for the privacy. But it may not be fine if you don't like to be manipulated.
How do they track views, clicks and payouts?
You don't, ideally.
One of the great -- although I suspect inevitable -- sins of the early web was the "innovation" of tracking clicks on advertising. Ads had been around for over a century before that in other media, and the only real measure of success available to advertisers was "when I spend money on ads in this [magazine, newspaper, TV show, radio spot, billboard, …], sales appear to go up by this amount, compared to spending money on [other thing]." Selling ads based on the notion that the only effective web advertisement is the one that makes the viewer stop reading that article, right now, and drop everything to CLICK! RIGHT! THIS! MOMENT! was, in the light of all previous advertising history, absolutely bonkers.
One of the great -- although I suspect inevitable -- sins of the early web was the "innovation" of tracking clicks on advertising. Ads had been around for over a century before that in other media, and the only real measure of success available to advertisers was "when I spend money on ads in this [magazine, newspaper, TV show, radio spot, billboard, …], sales appear to go up by this amount, compared to spending money on [other thing]." Selling ads based on the notion that the only effective web advertisement is the one that makes the viewer stop reading that article, right now, and drop everything to CLICK! RIGHT! THIS! MOMENT! was, in the light of all previous advertising history, absolutely bonkers.
Isn’t wip.co telegram a secondary feature? The payment is for the community at large. Namely the website, no?
Fuck knows, I only remember it starting as a telegram group.
Oh wow. That’s pretty interesting. Yeah I don’t know either lol. Crazy price to me
I would imagine that it's, in part, because they want to allow anonymous communication for political dissidents and the like. It's hard to make an app that is resistant to nation state level spying. It's that much harder to implement an anonymous payment system on top of that.
I know Bitcoin and the like exist, but you're vastly increasing the attack surface to identify someone.
I know Bitcoin and the like exist, but you're vastly increasing the attack surface to identify someone.
Pavel clearly has a social agenda behind Telegram. He wants to provide access to independent uncensored communication platform to everyone for free.
So looks like ads is the only other option left for now.
So looks like ads is the only other option left for now.
Today ads never come without tracking. This is the problem. And even without tracking ads are a kind of garbage I don't want anyway. So, the day I get ads in Telegram I'm leaving. At the same time I wouldn't mind a reasonable (~1$/month, I don't do anything heavy, text messaging only) subscription.
I'm not sure about this, if anything there seems to have been a few services recently (e.g. DuckDuckGo, Qwant) that are supported by ads (presumably with metrics on ad performance for advertisers) but without following you around the internet. They seem to be doing ok as businesses, and it seems a reasonable compromise to me.
I'm curious about how Telegram will decide what ads to show, how heavily it will try and personalize them; will the ads be relevant to the channel you are in or follow you around Telegram.
FWIW, personally, I like the idea of a choice of ads or paid subscription best.
I'm curious about how Telegram will decide what ads to show, how heavily it will try and personalize them; will the ads be relevant to the channel you are in or follow you around Telegram.
FWIW, personally, I like the idea of a choice of ads or paid subscription best.
> ~1$/month, I don't do anything heavy, text messaging only
Won't work. The vast majority people don't pay for messaging service, and without people, there's no messaging app. Ads are the only way forward.
Will they offer an optional ad-free subscription? Maybe, but I wouldn't count on that, and it's likely to be higher than $1/month.
> So, the day I get ads in Telegram I'm leaving
Nobody cares.
Won't work. The vast majority people don't pay for messaging service, and without people, there's no messaging app. Ads are the only way forward.
Will they offer an optional ad-free subscription? Maybe, but I wouldn't count on that, and it's likely to be higher than $1/month.
> So, the day I get ads in Telegram I'm leaving
Nobody cares.
> Nobody cares
I have stimulated many people to switch to Telegram because it is the best and all you have is to try it, realize that and motivate your friends to switch with you. Obviously many of these people will go with me once I find a better alternative. The situation probably is the same for many other people.
I have stimulated many people to switch to Telegram because it is the best and all you have is to try it, realize that and motivate your friends to switch with you. Obviously many of these people will go with me once I find a better alternative. The situation probably is the same for many other people.
Nobody cares is an exaggeration, but correct spiritual point for the grandstanding a minority of HN users make about always leaving X or Y or never joining Z because of situations like you mentioned. Yet nothing actually changes in the real word because of how much of a niche minority these people are.
> Obviously many of these people will go with me once I find a better alternative.
People will go only if there's another service that's good enough and has enough user density. You may find the best privacy-oriented, ad-free messaging app, but if it's empty or if it's hard to use, it's essentially useless.
By this point, it's hard to compete with the behemoths like WhatsApp or Telegram and people will not care about this nearly as much as you do. So, no, it's not 'obvious' at all.
People will go only if there's another service that's good enough and has enough user density. You may find the best privacy-oriented, ad-free messaging app, but if it's empty or if it's hard to use, it's essentially useless.
By this point, it's hard to compete with the behemoths like WhatsApp or Telegram and people will not care about this nearly as much as you do. So, no, it's not 'obvious' at all.
I have been told the same about Telegram just a couple of months ago.
Most of the people I know have less than 10 contacts they actually care about and communicate regularly and it is not hard to convince the most of them to install an app you would sincerely recommend.
Most of the people I know have less than 10 contacts they actually care about and communicate regularly and it is not hard to convince the most of them to install an app you would sincerely recommend.
You don't understand how hard is for a messaging app to gain traction. Telegram has been growing for years and years, and it offers some significant advantages over WhatsApp. Even with all this marketing and effort, I'd say only about 10% of my WhatsApp contacts are on Telegram. Now you want to get people to move to yet another app? For what? Why would they? Because no ads?
If a new app ever manages to become big (as in, Telegram-level big, let alone WhatsApp), it would take years of raising money and marketing. And how would they pay for that exactly? You think people pay a mensual/anual fee for a messaging apps when there are free alternatives? No, the answer is, again, ads. That or selling user data, which is much worse.
You're too focused on the tech, but you have no understanding of how business works.
If a new app ever manages to become big (as in, Telegram-level big, let alone WhatsApp), it would take years of raising money and marketing. And how would they pay for that exactly? You think people pay a mensual/anual fee for a messaging apps when there are free alternatives? No, the answer is, again, ads. That or selling user data, which is much worse.
You're too focused on the tech, but you have no understanding of how business works.
The Whatsapp route is to get purchased by and subsidized by Facebook. There is no chance the antitrust authorities in the US and Europe will allow something like that to happen again.
While I would be happy to pay for it in principle, the value of Telegram to me is that is has provided a platform for many political dissidents - individuals and groups - who might otherwise be persecuted for their beliefs and activism, and denied a platform for learning and discussion.
I could be wrong but I believe this is a popular reason for Telegram's appeal.
How many of those would be comfortable trusting Telegram with payment details, rather than just a pseudonym?
I could be wrong but I believe this is a popular reason for Telegram's appeal.
How many of those would be comfortable trusting Telegram with payment details, rather than just a pseudonym?
I'm not sure why that would be a problem. Telegram could easily make bitcoin and/or cash a payment option like countless VPN providers have. No "real info" necessary.
Bitcoin and other crypto coins are very inaccessible. Even disregarding transaction fees, you can't really get bitcoin without giving your payment details to someone.
Yes, countless VPN providers do need your payment details. And that is a risk. The comfort in that risk however is that anyone with knowledge of your VPN payment still doesn't know what you did with that VPN. With a messaging app however, you are risking your entire online identity.
Yes, countless VPN providers do need your payment details. And that is a risk. The comfort in that risk however is that anyone with knowledge of your VPN payment still doesn't know what you did with that VPN. With a messaging app however, you are risking your entire online identity.
I guess one threat in that scenario is if some other competing service actually does succeed in their ads driven model, they can attract a lot more users, because it's free? But I have no idea about running a company this size tbh, just thinking out loud.
These startup social apps that run on a loss are heavily, intensely focused on user count as a KPI.
I wonder if that leads to them balking at the reality that once you start charging money you'll lose a % of your users (which should be normal and fine!)
I wonder if that leads to them balking at the reality that once you start charging money you'll lose a % of your users (which should be normal and fine!)
> which should be normal and fine!
It shouldn't be normal and fine, because a large part of the value derived from social apps is the network of people using the app.
Charging money means adding friction, which will mean a lot less people use the app and thus it's value is significantly reduced.
It shouldn't be normal and fine, because a large part of the value derived from social apps is the network of people using the app.
Charging money means adding friction, which will mean a lot less people use the app and thus it's value is significantly reduced.
I don't think subscriptions work for every product.
In the case of something ubiquitous like a messaging app, I think ads scale better than subscriptions.
In the case of something ubiquitous like a messaging app, I think ads scale better than subscriptions.
It's unclear what you mean by the WhatsApp route. Their route was getting bought and subsidized by Facebook, and eventually, show ads.
The #1 thing holding people back from changing to Telegram or Signal is network effects and you want to add a paywall?
I would pay for a good messaging app, but most people wouldn't, and a messaging app most people don't use is a bad messaging app.
I would pay for a good messaging app, but most people wouldn't, and a messaging app most people don't use is a bad messaging app.
How much do you think they could charge, and what percentage of their users do you think would pay that?
Not everyone wants to sell user data. Their business is in private communication. WhatsApp reads through all your shit, whether you like it or not.
Nope. WhatsApp can only potentially read your group messages since 1:1 messages are end to end encrypted. You shouldn't spread FUD
WhatsApp group chats are end to end encrypted too. You must be thinking of... Telegram, where only secret 1:1 chats are end to end encrypted
Group messages are also end-to-end encrypted.
This was in the news some months ago, they have backdoors for 1:1s that they use to comply with government agency and police data requests. Do go look it up.
This has not been found, that would be major news on mainstream channels. (Do go and cite sources.)
If you need some obscure news source for this, it's very unlikely to be true and unless you or a trusted friend of yours has reasonable expertise in the relevant field (reverse engineering or cryptography might be relevant, perhaps both depending on the type of backdoor) you can't rely on some controversial source being correct.
If you need some obscure news source for this, it's very unlikely to be true and unless you or a trusted friend of yours has reasonable expertise in the relevant field (reverse engineering or cryptography might be relevant, perhaps both depending on the type of backdoor) you can't rely on some controversial source being correct.
Pavel Durov, the CEO of Telegram, has repeatedly said the following on his Telegram channel about ads on Telegram:
- ads will be only on very large public channels and not on all public channels
- there won’t be any ads in chats
- the ads will be contextual, and not based on tracking or profiling users and their activity
- users will be able to opt out of ads
Other monetization options like donations and subscriptions are also in the works.
His channel is at https://t.me/durov
Personally, I wouldn’t mind paying a modest fee for this service.
- ads will be only on very large public channels and not on all public channels
- there won’t be any ads in chats
- the ads will be contextual, and not based on tracking or profiling users and their activity
- users will be able to opt out of ads
Other monetization options like donations and subscriptions are also in the works.
His channel is at https://t.me/durov
Personally, I wouldn’t mind paying a modest fee for this service.
Telegram can also sell "premium reaction packs" (steam hats), and/or go Discord mode and have people "boost" private groups etc with "premium features"... I would actually pay for better video calls (no one is giving us 1080p or greater)
Same. UI/UX-wise and super light and blazing fast native clients - I would gladly pay like ~$5/month.
Let people pay for premium stickers. Split between Telegram and the artists. Win-win-win. Line does this well (at least it did in the past, I’m not in Asia anymore)
Given Telegram's user base I can see these premium stickers being copied and made public very quickly. I'm not sure how you prevent this.
Give a special logo/color/background to the premium stickers or to premium users (people paying 1€/month for example).
Premium users is likely the way to go, then. I feel like the background / logo could be emulated.
You can easily imagine a shiny border that cannot be emulated easily. In any case it doesn’t really matter if some people can copy the content. As long as enough users are willing to pay for premium stuff, that’s good. And it’s definitely the case, lot of people are happy paying for cosmetic content when it’s done well.
I think algorithmically detecting paid stickers on upload can work. I needed to detect duplicate images for a pet project once and I've got satisfying results out of using perceptual image hashing. Building up a database of hashes for existing files takes time, but after that looking up an image to see if it's in the database is fast, and it handles some basic color transforms, as well as minor cropping.
I'm not sure whether this particular approach is feasible at the scale of Telegram. But I believe this arrangement can be a good income source without upsetting users the way ads might.
I'm not sure whether this particular approach is feasible at the scale of Telegram. But I believe this arrangement can be a good income source without upsetting users the way ads might.
What about ads + paid plans with no ads? I feel like that’s a great middle ground for everyone who would delete the app if it had ads. Am I missing something with that thought process?
The problem with this model from the advertisers perspective is the people with disposable income who will pay for your ad free experience are the exact people they want to show the ads to. I don’t know if telegram has this problem, but it’s certainly the problem in most ad + premium models because if I am advertising something like a car, I want the guy who can afford $10/month for her texting app to see my ad more than the people who don’t! Those ads are the most profitable and have the best chance of subsidizing the free users, who you need in your network to keep the paid users.
(Throwaway because I work in ad tech and don’t want this sentiment linked to my employer)
(Throwaway because I work in ad tech and don’t want this sentiment linked to my employer)
Exactly. FB would never do this, and google would never do it for search. It's adverse selection.
Spotify is a good example. The ad supported version has uses: it's a funnel for paid users, a deterrent to competition, a data farm, etc. Making money is not one of those uses. I suspect that this is because the best advertisers audience subscribes.
Also, opt out ads also harms your upside. EG, fb make more in ad revenue than they could ever make in subs. You don't want to pursue an ad-based strategy that excludes the possibility of a win like that, even if it's a long shot.
Spotify is a good example. The ad supported version has uses: it's a funnel for paid users, a deterrent to competition, a data farm, etc. Making money is not one of those uses. I suspect that this is because the best advertisers audience subscribes.
Also, opt out ads also harms your upside. EG, fb make more in ad revenue than they could ever make in subs. You don't want to pursue an ad-based strategy that excludes the possibility of a win like that, even if it's a long shot.
As a user, I'm wouldn't want my searches to be ad-free. Companies pay good money to put their ads there, and they may outperform the search algorithms.
Practices I don't like: - Making sponsored searches look like regular searches. - Pay to Play, where your content gets demoted if not a paid subscriber (Thinking of a non-google websites here).
Practices I don't like: - Making sponsored searches look like regular searches. - Pay to Play, where your content gets demoted if not a paid subscriber (Thinking of a non-google websites here).
Ignoring the adverse selection problem for a moment, why don't you think FB could make more money on subs? Facebook revenue per user is $30 in the US. As long as the monthly subscription is greater than $2.50 a month, they are making more that way.
Because many people would not spend 2.50 a month for Facebook, and their value prop of “all your friends are here” would collapse for many users.
And then you have adverse selection putting downward pressure on the revenue per free user.
And then you have adverse selection putting downward pressure on the revenue per free user.
Your argument would be stronger if you used the same one that you used in your initial post.
As you previously stated, revenue is not distributed evenly. For sake of argument, the actual numbers for 5 users could be: 120, 30, 0, 0, 0 . The ad-free subscriber would not pay the average profit, they would need to pay the average profit of a paid subscriber. If we assume only the whales would pay for an ad-free experience, they would need to pay $10/month and not $2.50.
As you previously stated, revenue is not distributed evenly. For sake of argument, the actual numbers for 5 users could be: 120, 30, 0, 0, 0 . The ad-free subscriber would not pay the average profit, they would need to pay the average profit of a paid subscriber. If we assume only the whales would pay for an ad-free experience, they would need to pay $10/month and not $2.50.
So, two points.
First, I think facebook's global revenue per user is $30. US should be much higher. My back-of the envelope has it @ $225 per year currently ($43bn revenue from 190m users)... I may be wrong. Don't hurt me.
Second, they make $225 (or $30) per user while also maintaining a very high number of users. You can't expect to put up a paywall and not lose users. So, to reach parity, you need to charge enough for subs to replace those.
For FB, it's flat impossible. That's why I picked it as an example. You cannot have 190 million americans as paying users at any price. You definitely can't have that many @ $20 per month.
First, I think facebook's global revenue per user is $30. US should be much higher. My back-of the envelope has it @ $225 per year currently ($43bn revenue from 190m users)... I may be wrong. Don't hurt me.
Second, they make $225 (or $30) per user while also maintaining a very high number of users. You can't expect to put up a paywall and not lose users. So, to reach parity, you need to charge enough for subs to replace those.
For FB, it's flat impossible. That's why I picked it as an example. You cannot have 190 million americans as paying users at any price. You definitely can't have that many @ $20 per month.
I think Spotify makes their ads purposely annoying to use it as funnel for paid plans. I have the feeling the ads got worse over time so stopped using the app.
I normally don't mind listening to the news and commercial breaks on the good old radio.
I normally don't mind listening to the news and commercial breaks on the good old radio.
Well... that's part of the premise of freemium. They could probably kill ads entirely and like without that revenue, but then why would people subscribe?
For spotify this is tolerable. Network effects exist, but they aren't everything. For telegram, network effects are the whole thing.
"Freemium" doesn't usually work the way people think it does. "Just let me pay to remove ads" is rarely good business advice. If your business model is ads, you stick with ads. If your business model is subs, you might have an ad-supported version for other reasons.
Even in old media, paid channels/papers/etc. still have ads. They don't make an ad free version.
For spotify this is tolerable. Network effects exist, but they aren't everything. For telegram, network effects are the whole thing.
"Freemium" doesn't usually work the way people think it does. "Just let me pay to remove ads" is rarely good business advice. If your business model is ads, you stick with ads. If your business model is subs, you might have an ad-supported version for other reasons.
Even in old media, paid channels/papers/etc. still have ads. They don't make an ad free version.
Yes. Spotify makes very little from the ads. Spotify would like to cripple the payment free version as much as possible. It is only there to move you over to the paid version and possibly as a helpful network effects way.
This just cements my belief that advertisers no longer consider making people feel intruded upon by ads a bad thing - they directly target people who do not want to see their messaging.
The goal is to nonconsensually force their message on people who don't want it.
Fuck these people.
The goal is to nonconsensually force their message on people who don't want it.
Fuck these people.
It’s not that people who want ad-free experiences are targeted, it’s that people who have money to spare every month to buy a premium experience (in this case, not be annoyed by an ad), are highly correlated with people who you want to reach because they have money to buy your product, and that’s who they want to advertise to.
Advertisers don’t want to be spending money to reach people who will never buy their product, either because they hate their ad or because they don’t have money, but unfortunately there is no way to know who these people are in advance. Spending $10/month to not look at text ads is a sure fire way to signal you have money so you aren’t in the later camp, and people who hate ads with a passion and won’t respond to them are rare in the wild (hn nonwithstanding :D)
Too many people think they can monetize by just “sprinkle some ads on it” without thinking about why an advertiser would buy those ads.
Advertisers don’t want to be spending money to reach people who will never buy their product, either because they hate their ad or because they don’t have money, but unfortunately there is no way to know who these people are in advance. Spending $10/month to not look at text ads is a sure fire way to signal you have money so you aren’t in the later camp, and people who hate ads with a passion and won’t respond to them are rare in the wild (hn nonwithstanding :D)
Too many people think they can monetize by just “sprinkle some ads on it” without thinking about why an advertiser would buy those ads.
Just to be pedantic (because I was a bit confused), the emphasis shouldn't really be on "targeted" because
> and that’s who they want to advertise to
is just a fancy way of saying "targeting". What I think you're saying is that it's not people who want ad-free experiences that are being targeted. Rather, those people belong to a broader group -- those with money to spend -- who are being targeted.
> and that’s who they want to advertise to
is just a fancy way of saying "targeting". What I think you're saying is that it's not people who want ad-free experiences that are being targeted. Rather, those people belong to a broader group -- those with money to spend -- who are being targeted.
Online advertisers are much simpler than that.
They want sales, or signups or whatever acronym they need to force up. Group A converts at 10%. Group B at 1%. The advertiser may have a theory of why these groups are different. Increasingly, we don't. FB, especially, does a lot of automated targeting.
Marketers tend to have good instincts about these things, because patterns are repetitive and simple. That said, I'm pretty confident that advertising to subscribers would be more effective than advertising to non subscribers.
In my mind, "person who subscribed to a thing online" is just a good qualifier. It probably correlates to a lot of other qualities like "shops online often" or whatnot. Those "theories" don't really matter though. They're just a starting point.
Advertisers don't know or care what people think of the ads nor how they make the 98.3% who didn't buy anything feel. All they know is that they didn't click/buy/whatever.
I think people imagine online advertisers like a geekier version of mad men. It isn't like that. There's not the pretensions of understanding or influencing psychology. It's more like stock trading.
They want sales, or signups or whatever acronym they need to force up. Group A converts at 10%. Group B at 1%. The advertiser may have a theory of why these groups are different. Increasingly, we don't. FB, especially, does a lot of automated targeting.
Marketers tend to have good instincts about these things, because patterns are repetitive and simple. That said, I'm pretty confident that advertising to subscribers would be more effective than advertising to non subscribers.
In my mind, "person who subscribed to a thing online" is just a good qualifier. It probably correlates to a lot of other qualities like "shops online often" or whatnot. Those "theories" don't really matter though. They're just a starting point.
Advertisers don't know or care what people think of the ads nor how they make the 98.3% who didn't buy anything feel. All they know is that they didn't click/buy/whatever.
I think people imagine online advertisers like a geekier version of mad men. It isn't like that. There's not the pretensions of understanding or influencing psychology. It's more like stock trading.
> The goal is to nonconsensually force their message on people who don't want it.
What part of the post you replied to indicates nonconsensual?
What part of the post you replied to indicates nonconsensual?
Why would you think someone who actively pays to not be served ads would be a good fit to be advertised to?
Eg. My personal experience with buying products (food, software, SaaS, etc) based on ads conditioned me to actively distrust products that are heavily advertised compared to stuff that's just mentioned in reddit threads or used by friends. Would I be a good fit for ads?
Eg. My personal experience with buying products (food, software, SaaS, etc) based on ads conditioned me to actively distrust products that are heavily advertised compared to stuff that's just mentioned in reddit threads or used by friends. Would I be a good fit for ads?
I think I took an advertising class long time ago (so long ago that I don't remember if it was an actual advertising class, Advertising 101 or some marketing class). But, what stuck to me was, that most people said that they were unaffected by ads, and the data showed otherwise. Ads also help with brand recognition etc. Typically, people are very familiar with some space, say desktop CPUs... and they'll say, "I'll never buy an intel CPU just based on an ad", and that might be true. However, when it comes to a space that's completely far away from their day to day expertise, say... weedkiller in the garden, and they're more likely to trust a branded product that they've seen product placement or other types of ad.
Of course, not everyone is that way, but ads have different objectives, and they are effective.
Of course, not everyone is that way, but ads have different objectives, and they are effective.
Disposable income. Demographic is different for people who pay to remove ads than people who don't. I pay to block ads on Hulu and Youtube and buy upcoming brands like Vuori, Away, Peloton, Allbirds etc.
Marketing works. How do you think your friends learned about product that are mentioned in reddit threads? Guarantee it wasn't organic. If the company was launched in the last 10 years, it was built on VC dollars used to spend tens to hundreds millions in marketing.
Marketing works. How do you think your friends learned about product that are mentioned in reddit threads? Guarantee it wasn't organic. If the company was launched in the last 10 years, it was built on VC dollars used to spend tens to hundreds millions in marketing.
The goal of an ad is mostly to make potential buyers aware of a specific product/brand. Hence, showing ads to potential buyers is most effective, even if many/most will not become actual buyers (like you, apparently). The conversion rate among the potential buyers (who can afford to pay for an ad-free service) is still much higher than among users who agree to see the ad (by not paying for an ad-free service), but cannot afford to buy the product.
If you are willing to pay for something that is free, it generally means you have more disposable income. It's not that you become more valuable, it's that the remaining cohort becomes less valuable.
Few people making $30,000 a year are going to pay to disable ads. many people making $200,000 or more are going to consider it.
Few people making $30,000 a year are going to pay to disable ads. many people making $200,000 or more are going to consider it.
How does Youtube Premium handle this?
Ah this makes total sense. Thanks for the additional info!
Ads create a twisted profit incentive that counters what Telegram wants to be, even if Telegram only pursues a privacy-friendly ads experience at first. Sell functionality, storage, customization, or digital assets. I know Discord doesn't _just_ make money off of these things, but that revenue stream is a compatible option for Telegram.
There will be no ads in the sense you're suggesting.
Ad providers want to target their ads or you'll get the worst performing ads which won't generate much revenue for anyone.
They may want it, but it's Pavel Durov who makes the ultimate decision, and, knowing him as well as I do, I'd say that it's very unlikely he'll allow any semblance of tracking or targeting. He has no sympathy for surveillance capitalism and "growth".
Besides, as I said in another comment, ads will only exist in channels. Channels have already sold ads directly since about forever.
Also: https://t.me/durov/153
Besides, as I said in another comment, ads will only exist in channels. Channels have already sold ads directly since about forever.
Also: https://t.me/durov/153
I'm totally in for this.
Please just let me pay for it.
I pay 12EUR/yr for email, it's ad-free and works. Happy to do the same arrangement for a IM service.
I pay 12EUR/yr for email, it's ad-free and works. Happy to do the same arrangement for a IM service.
Telegram has incredible and large cryptocurrency scene. I honestly think this would fly, if they would accept cryptocurrency as payment as well.
They tried an ICO, but that went nowhere.
Yeah, the SEC filed a complaint and Telegram settled: https://www.complianceweek.com/regulatory-enforcement/telegr...
Maybe just accept USD, EUR, and GBP instead.
They can certainly accept any cryptocurrency without creating their own, and especially without creating one that looks like an unregistered security.
Are there many here who use a Matrix client like Element? [1] Or one of the dozens of compatible chat apps? [2]
Why don't more people use it? I can't understand why people would jump from one closed source silo like WhatsApp to another closed source Silo like Telegram or Signal.
The UX of Element is terrific now.
[1]: https://element.io/ [2]: https://matrix.org/clients/
Why don't more people use it? I can't understand why people would jump from one closed source silo like WhatsApp to another closed source Silo like Telegram or Signal.
The UX of Element is terrific now.
[1]: https://element.io/ [2]: https://matrix.org/clients/
1. Signal is FOSS. Telegram is partially FOSS (the client).
2. At least on the desktop, the UX of element is pretty bad IMHO. It's slow and feels like a web browser (and it probably is something like that under the hood, I would bet). Telegram feels much nicer (but only as an instant messaging app; you can't make it look and feel like IRC for chatting, while Element can be twisted to partially resemble an IRC client). Signal is closer to where Element is at, in my experience.
2. At least on the desktop, the UX of element is pretty bad IMHO. It's slow and feels like a web browser (and it probably is something like that under the hood, I would bet). Telegram feels much nicer (but only as an instant messaging app; you can't make it look and feel like IRC for chatting, while Element can be twisted to partially resemble an IRC client). Signal is closer to where Element is at, in my experience.
> At least on the desktop, the UX of element is pretty bad IMHO.
I agree it can be slow as it's web based, but could I ask why you find the UX bad? I'd be interested in helping improve it.
> Signal is FOSS.
It appears to be abandoned: https://linuxreviews.org/Signal_Appears_To_Have_Abandoned_Th...
The signal client may be FOSS, but alternative clients are not allowed to use the Signal server. As Signal is not federated, hosting other servers is not possible. Below is a message by the creator of Signal `moxie0`:
> I'm not OK with LibreSignal using our servers, and I'm not OK with LibreSignal using the name "Signal." You're free to use our source code for whatever you would like under the terms of the license, but you're not entitled to use our name or the service that we run. [1]
> If you think running servers is difficult and expensive (you're right), ask yourself why you feel entitled for us to run them for your product.
[1]: https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issueco...
I agree it can be slow as it's web based, but could I ask why you find the UX bad? I'd be interested in helping improve it.
> Signal is FOSS.
It appears to be abandoned: https://linuxreviews.org/Signal_Appears_To_Have_Abandoned_Th...
The signal client may be FOSS, but alternative clients are not allowed to use the Signal server. As Signal is not federated, hosting other servers is not possible. Below is a message by the creator of Signal `moxie0`:
> I'm not OK with LibreSignal using our servers, and I'm not OK with LibreSignal using the name "Signal." You're free to use our source code for whatever you would like under the terms of the license, but you're not entitled to use our name or the service that we run. [1]
> If you think running servers is difficult and expensive (you're right), ask yourself why you feel entitled for us to run them for your product.
[1]: https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issueco...
The Signal client may be open source, but it's not free. It purports to be distributed under the GPL, but if you actually try to avail yourself of the primary benefit of the GPL -- the right to modify the software and distribute your modified version -- you get what you see in your own [1].
Oh, you mean they're being anal about the name? Ugh. That reminds me of years of Debian (and others ?) quibbling with Mozilla over this stuff.
Not just the name, but connecting to their server. Regarding the name, he's certainly well within his rights to enforce his trademark. I take no issue with that. Easy enough for LibreSignal to have used a non-infringing name.
As to the server claim, frankly it seems to me that that claim by Moxie is without any basis. The license clearly allows redistribution modified or unmodified, so redistributing the unmodified default server setting would seem to be legit. IANAL, though.
Even failing that, the libre app could have removed the default server altogether and made every user enter the address manually. What could Moxie possibly do about that? I'm saddened that they decided to back off.
I know Moxie has a lot of street cred in the security community but honestly after reading that thread years ago I have trouble seeing him as anything other than a bullshitter and an asshole. (What "benefit" does he imagine the LibreSignal authors would derive from their 100% free app, anyway? It's the potential users that he's screwing, not the devs...) I decided I'm never going to run any binaries from him, period. If he ever changes his mind and gets the official Signal app into the main F-Droid repository, I'll consider that. Until then (ha!), you won't find me on Signal.
As to the server claim, frankly it seems to me that that claim by Moxie is without any basis. The license clearly allows redistribution modified or unmodified, so redistributing the unmodified default server setting would seem to be legit. IANAL, though.
Even failing that, the libre app could have removed the default server altogether and made every user enter the address manually. What could Moxie possibly do about that? I'm saddened that they decided to back off.
I know Moxie has a lot of street cred in the security community but honestly after reading that thread years ago I have trouble seeing him as anything other than a bullshitter and an asshole. (What "benefit" does he imagine the LibreSignal authors would derive from their 100% free app, anyway? It's the potential users that he's screwing, not the devs...) I decided I'm never going to run any binaries from him, period. If he ever changes his mind and gets the official Signal app into the main F-Droid repository, I'll consider that. Until then (ha!), you won't find me on Signal.
Thanks for letting me know about Signal. That's pretty bad.
About abandonment - has Signal LLC announced anything about this? Reading that thread you linked to sounds rather ominous; i.e. that they're making an effort to prevent any modifications or adaptations from being meaningfully usable. I guess things haven't improved since then?
> but could I ask why you find the UX bad? I'd be interested in helping improve it.
Will email you about this, since it's veering too far off topic.
About abandonment - has Signal LLC announced anything about this? Reading that thread you linked to sounds rather ominous; i.e. that they're making an effort to prevent any modifications or adaptations from being meaningfully usable. I guess things haven't improved since then?
> but could I ask why you find the UX bad? I'd be interested in helping improve it.
Will email you about this, since it's veering too far off topic.
I mean it makes sense if they launch an ad service for public channels. They're already filled with ads and you can't even distinguish ads from real posts. Giving these creators and advertisers a chance to have their ads placed there will be very profitable for Telegram while not raising privacy issues (the channels are a great way to distribute ads since, if you follow a Linux channel you'll likely be interested in seeing System76 ads, right?).
Also they should start accepting donations from users. I would donate.
I switched to Telagram from Whatsapp, after the change in privacy update. I've seen a lot of my contacts switch over too.
Things I don't like:
1. Low volume during calls
2. The UI needs work.
Like for example, I click on my contact messages. To call that contact. I now have to select a ... menu item. Or once I start typing a message, the option to attach photos disappears.
1. Low volume during calls
2. The UI needs work.
Like for example, I click on my contact messages. To call that contact. I now have to select a ... menu item. Or once I start typing a message, the option to attach photos disappears.
Strange to see people switch from end-to-end encrypted WhatsApp to non-encrypted (by default) Telegram. What do I miss?
Presumably the fact that Facebook owns WhatsApp and continues to erode all the "protections" users of WhatsApp initially had from the invasive tentacles of Facebook into their data on WhatsApp.
Apart from the fact that they have access to your contacts, I haven't felt that the E2E encryption of WhatsApp has been in danger of being eroded.
I do use Signal when possible, but I find WhatsApp to be secure enough for my day to day messaging with friends and family.
I can't say the same about Telegram since it does not have E2E encryption on by default on all messages.
I do use Signal when possible, but I find WhatsApp to be secure enough for my day to day messaging with friends and family.
I can't say the same about Telegram since it does not have E2E encryption on by default on all messages.
For many it was the prospect of metadata being sent to WA's big brother Facebook.
Personally I don't want anything to do with the FB ecosystem so I deleted my WA account. I didn't have anything against WA per se, I really like the app , just the connection to FB is unacceptable.
But if telegram sells to FB or someone worse, you will be in a worse position as now they will not only have your metadata, but also the full text of your messages.
It doesn't make since to move away from one company for privacy reasons onto another company with even worse privacy.
It doesn't make since to move away from one company for privacy reasons onto another company with even worse privacy.
That's right. I don't think I said otherwise.
Obviously you're missing that there's more factors to a person's choice than default encryption.
The author of the parent comment specifically mentioned "change in privacy update" as the reason to switch. Until WhatsApp drops end-to-end encryption, there's not that much evil they can do. They can't read your messages. You don't need to trust WhatsApp (so far).
Telegram can have the best privacy policy, but they can always read your messages. You have to trust Telegram to do the right thing. (Except those few who opt in to use encrypted chats.)
Telegram can have the best privacy policy, but they can always read your messages. You have to trust Telegram to do the right thing. (Except those few who opt in to use encrypted chats.)
You have to trust WhatsApp, because it is closed-source. Nothing stops them from planting a backdoor and enabling it specifically on your device, or from updating the E2E protocol to make it insecure.
If your threat model includes WhatsApp/Telegram developers, you can't use WhatsApp but you can actually (carefully) use Telegram's E2E chats, because Telegram's client is an open-source app with reproducible builds. E2E in a closed-source app is useless, and all UX inconveniences of E2E are just "security theater".
If your threat model includes WhatsApp/Telegram developers, you can't use WhatsApp but you can actually (carefully) use Telegram's E2E chats, because Telegram's client is an open-source app with reproducible builds. E2E in a closed-source app is useless, and all UX inconveniences of E2E are just "security theater".
Closed source WhatsApp is a problem. And a backdoor is possible. However, it's still detectable, albeit not easily. I'm sure researchers are closely looking at WhatsApp binaries. WhatsApp backdoor would be a scandal.
Sure, open source WhatsApp would be better. However, we are comparing detectable potential backdoor with totally undetectable existing access to all non E2E chats on Telegram servers. Telegram developers can already see everything right now. (By the way, opt-in E2E encryption is almost useless. Encryption should be the default, and enabled for group chats too.)
Between these two options WhatsApp situation is clearly better.
Sure, open source WhatsApp would be better. However, we are comparing detectable potential backdoor with totally undetectable existing access to all non E2E chats on Telegram servers. Telegram developers can already see everything right now. (By the way, opt-in E2E encryption is almost useless. Encryption should be the default, and enabled for group chats too.)
Between these two options WhatsApp situation is clearly better.
Your comment is based on two assumptions:
- That backdoors are routinely detectable in closed-source applications. They are not just "not easily" detectable, they are impossible to detect without a good amount of luck, and even so, the knowledge about a new backdoor will come after years, after all of the damage was done. Numerous discovered RCEs in Windows, some of which laid there for more than a decade after being found, confirm this.
- That there are incentives for security researchers to routinely disassemble WhatsApp binary and provide results of their inspection to the public, and not just report to employers or use the knowledge about a Facebook-authored backdoor to blackmail Facebook. There are none.
If you discard these two assumptions, you can see that Telegram model is better because it gives users clear choice between passing data to Telegram (in exchange for chat sync) and using E2E, with strong guarantees of E2E that are backed by reproducible builds, not by trusting Facebook or "oh, but that would be a scandal". The "almost useless" E2E of Telegram (I don't see how it's almost useless, it's there, it's working, and it provides value for users) is better than the completely useless E2E of WhatsApp.
(But yeah, group chats have no option of E2E in Telegram, that sucks.)
- That backdoors are routinely detectable in closed-source applications. They are not just "not easily" detectable, they are impossible to detect without a good amount of luck, and even so, the knowledge about a new backdoor will come after years, after all of the damage was done. Numerous discovered RCEs in Windows, some of which laid there for more than a decade after being found, confirm this.
- That there are incentives for security researchers to routinely disassemble WhatsApp binary and provide results of their inspection to the public, and not just report to employers or use the knowledge about a Facebook-authored backdoor to blackmail Facebook. There are none.
If you discard these two assumptions, you can see that Telegram model is better because it gives users clear choice between passing data to Telegram (in exchange for chat sync) and using E2E, with strong guarantees of E2E that are backed by reproducible builds, not by trusting Facebook or "oh, but that would be a scandal". The "almost useless" E2E of Telegram (I don't see how it's almost useless, it's there, it's working, and it provides value for users) is better than the completely useless E2E of WhatsApp.
(But yeah, group chats have no option of E2E in Telegram, that sucks.)
Thank you for summarizing my assumptions, but it was not fully correct:
- I'm not saying backdoors are "routinely" detectable, I'm simply saying it's possible to detect them. In contrast, we have zero possibility to find out if Telegram is doing something nasty with your chats. Telegram may well do it already, and we may never learn.
- Regarding the incentives - security researchers often disclose vulnerabilities to the public. Obviously they have the incentives to do it.
As for the optional nature of Telegram E2E encryption - Signal and WhatsApp successfully demonstrated it's possible to make E2E the default (and only) option. There's no competition here. I wonder what proportion of Telegram users understand the ramifications. Many people migrating from WhatsApp to Telegram probably don't.
- I'm not saying backdoors are "routinely" detectable, I'm simply saying it's possible to detect them. In contrast, we have zero possibility to find out if Telegram is doing something nasty with your chats. Telegram may well do it already, and we may never learn.
- Regarding the incentives - security researchers often disclose vulnerabilities to the public. Obviously they have the incentives to do it.
As for the optional nature of Telegram E2E encryption - Signal and WhatsApp successfully demonstrated it's possible to make E2E the default (and only) option. There's no competition here. I wonder what proportion of Telegram users understand the ramifications. Many people migrating from WhatsApp to Telegram probably don't.
Wouldn’t you have to trust WhatsApp to do the right thing too, as far as end to end encryption is concerned? How would anyone know if the original Signal E2E is still around or changes have been made to it? WhatsApp already collects, stores and shares more metadata than Signal does. Are there any audit reports from trustworthy parties on WhatsApp behaving as expected on encryption? Or are we just relying on someone working on WhatsApp to become a whistleblower?
Sure, WhatsApp can go rogue at any time. Signal app is obviously better. However, at least we have a possibility to find out if WhatsApp goes evil - decompilation, protocol analysis are still available. I wouldn't also discount fear of reputation losses if E2E vanishes from WhatsApp.
Compared to maybe-evil-in-the-future WhatsApp, default Telegram is already evil, because they have access to all communication right now. What do (or will) they do with all that data?
(Opt-in E2E - and only for 1-on-1 chats - is almost useless. Encryption should be the default.)
Compared to maybe-evil-in-the-future WhatsApp, default Telegram is already evil, because they have access to all communication right now. What do (or will) they do with all that data?
(Opt-in E2E - and only for 1-on-1 chats - is almost useless. Encryption should be the default.)
I think you missed my point, which is that WhatsApp is already rogue by way of metadata collection (which is as valuable as content), and that there’s no way anyone can claim with certainty that it’s not gobbling up more data on the server. Even Signal has stopped publishing its server source code for nearly a year, and if we are playing the game of what Telegram is doing with the data, we can say the same about Signal too on metadata (now that more information about groups and group memberships is stored on the servers).
We don't need to play any games to point out that Telegram can see everything, including messages.
Why is this such a big issue? When I use Telegram in the past (and I did for years) every chat I had was encrypted. Enabling isn't that complicated.
Enabling E2E encryption in Telegram limits you to only the device that the chat was created in. WhatsApp and Signal allow you to use their desktop apps (not the best app but that isn't the point). This allows me to use a full sized keyboard when I have the need.
It's not complicated, but it's still something you have to manually do (meaning many will never do it because they don't know it exists) and you lose a lot of features that seem to be the selling points of Telegram
1. why do everyone insist E2E-encryption is necessary for IM but not for email and letters ( the alternatives)? Because that is mostly what I use Telegram for.
2. I could have a hard time choosing between Signal and Telegram some days. With WhatsApp I know Facebook will do metadata analysis on my contacts and my conversations (possible even with E2E-encryption). They'll also upload some or all my messages unencrypted to Google if I or any of my contacts enable backups.
Does that explain it?
2. I could have a hard time choosing between Signal and Telegram some days. With WhatsApp I know Facebook will do metadata analysis on my contacts and my conversations (possible even with E2E-encryption). They'll also upload some or all my messages unencrypted to Google if I or any of my contacts enable backups.
Does that explain it?
E2E encryption is necessary for all communication. Email is unfortunately not encrypted, but it doesn't explain why would you choose non-E22 tech when there are perfectly good E2E alternatives.
E2E is an insurance against:
* bugs
* rogue employee
* server vulnerabilities
* acquisitions (imagine Telegram being acquired by Facebook)
As for metadata analysis, I still fail to understand how is it comparable to Telegram having access to all messages.
E2E is an insurance against:
* bugs
* rogue employee
* server vulnerabilities
* acquisitions (imagine Telegram being acquired by Facebook)
As for metadata analysis, I still fail to understand how is it comparable to Telegram having access to all messages.
The UI issues you are mentioning are very minor and have been like that in Telegram for years. I would say that there are different way to present a feature and coming from Whatsapp you are used to one way of doing things.
IMHO Telegram has the best UI and UX of all other "family friendly" chat app.
I do agree on the Voice and Video calls that need more improvement.
IMHO Telegram has the best UI and UX of all other "family friendly" chat app.
I do agree on the Voice and Video calls that need more improvement.
I'd be more than happy to pay for Telegram service for my family and I. I'm tired of depending on ad supported software where my input as a user is out of alignment with the paying customer. Better to be both user and customer.
Doesn't mean you don't end up the product anyway.
Which is the real rub. Paying for a product is no guarantee that your data won't be misused anyway. It's incremental money for the taking for any enterprise.
Which is the real rub. Paying for a product is no guarantee that your data won't be misused anyway. It's incremental money for the taking for any enterprise.
Is there a reliable way to backup Telegram conversations including media? It seems like a good idea to make some before they change the endless storage and scroll back, just in case.
You can export chats and other information anytime. The Telegram help and many other sites have details on how to do it.
Yes, in the desktop version there is an export feature since late 2018 iirc. It was done because GDPR though that's just an excuse, equivalent (in this aspect) privacy laws had existed since the 90s in most (all?) of the EU.
There is also third party software for it that has more options, the internal one is a bit limited. Some are based on tg-cli, so they're not redoing the work of implementing a client but just format the history into an archive format. I think the project that I contributed to (years ago) was called something like Telegram history formatter.
Backups of your data are always a good idea, regardless of who owns it. Triply so if the service is a bit shady (no business model, for instance). I learned that lesson the hard way with Grooveshark (which totally had a business model and did basically the same as YouTube till someone found evidence of the authors uploading copyrighted stuff themselves, but until then it seemed more stable than Telegram seems today).
There is also third party software for it that has more options, the internal one is a bit limited. Some are based on tg-cli, so they're not redoing the work of implementing a client but just format the history into an archive format. I think the project that I contributed to (years ago) was called something like Telegram history formatter.
Backups of your data are always a good idea, regardless of who owns it. Triply so if the service is a bit shady (no business model, for instance). I learned that lesson the hard way with Grooveshark (which totally had a business model and did basically the same as YouTube till someone found evidence of the authors uploading copyrighted stuff themselves, but until then it seemed more stable than Telegram seems today).
This will happen with any sufficiently popular walled garden. I am looking at you Signal. Consider distributed Matrix instead.
I've paid for cellphone apps where the only benefit is to make them ad-free. I wonder if the problem is one of the sheer magnitude of revenue, to wit: Maybe they can capture $10/user/year on subscription fees, but the sky's the limit on how much they can get in $/user/year from advertisers.
ASK ME FOR MONEY AND I WILL PAY YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE!
They have to at some point. Hosting terabytes of data for free isn't cheap.
Hmm... I'm not sure ads are compatible with their business model, because won't they only truly bring in value to Telegram if the advertisers get to use targeted ads i.e. get to know the Telegram users? ... on this privacy oriented service ...
Telegram has a major spam problem. I've got two Telegram accounts, both with the strictest privacy settings possible. One is using a US number, the other a European number. Both have the number set to private. Somehow, spammers, bots, etc are finding me on Telegram and sending me unsolicited messages 2+ times per day. All the stereotypical spam topics, plus occasional disturbing porn. These messages aren't filtered into a different inbox or even silent notifications. I'm on the verge of deleting both of my Telegram accounts over this.
Change your username. You might have taken a common username and must have got into spam lists.
I would pay for Telegram in a heart beat. It's just fantastic.
If I remember well, they used DigitalOcean as provider? Was it just for frontend servers? When Russia banned it, they just blanked banned (almost) all of the DO's range.
It was AWS and Google. [1]
1. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43865538
1. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43865538
And what so? China bans half of the Internet. It's actually harder now to find a range that is not banned that one which isn't for VPNs.
No, I'm not making a statement about blocking, just using it as device to try and infer what's Telegram's infrastructure, I'd assume it's majority of their expenses.
I will be super happy to pay for Telegram if they open-source all of their code - including the servers. Most of their apps are FLOSS and support reproducible builds already, except the server.
https://telegram.org/apps#source-code
https://telegram.org/apps#source-code
Well. Guess it's time to start looking for a new messaging solution. I've really liked Telegram for its clean, uncluttered interface, and its stickers. But I really don't wanna start the adblock race with their desktop and phone clients.
Anyone else unable to update the Telegram macOS app? In the "App Store" app, it downloads, and then a popup says: "Telegram could not be installed. Please try again later." It's been doing that for a week. (macOS 11.2.1)
I like their product, I think they should charge a low fee. I'd pay to use it.
What is the benefit of Telegram over other platforms like Signal? I haven't been on it in awhile but was quite turned off by all the "HODL!" channels that it seemed to be filled with at the time.
I don't have a single chat like that. Like, if you don't want that, don't join cryptocurrency / investment groups?
As for the other question, what dont__panic said also goes for me. I'm trying to switch to Signal but it's such a drag compared to tg, the UX is so bad (and it's the best among encrypted messengers that I've found) it's hard to convince even myself let alone whole groups.
As for the other question, what dont__panic said also goes for me. I'm trying to switch to Signal but it's such a drag compared to tg, the UX is so bad (and it's the best among encrypted messengers that I've found) it's hard to convince even myself let alone whole groups.
A lot of folks like Telegram's UX for private messages and group chats. I've been using it to talk to my friends for years and have no idea about any of the "social" channels. Personally I'd say that's probably not the best thing to to evaluate a messenger client based on -- particularly since Signal completely fails at that criteria since it literally doesn't have any social channels at all.
I really like Telegram, if only I could convince anyone to actually use it.
the only thing missing from telegram for me is the 'friend circle' thing, i.e. everyone can have a list of friends and he/she can publish only to that group of people, something like wechat's 'moments', so far it's roughly a forum(many can talk on common subject) and a broadcast(channel by manual subscription). also I'd like to disable the 'preview url' as it takes quite some space on the screen when I'm only interested in text
So WhatsApp started with $1/annual plan. Why telegram can't do the same? I guess lots of people would pay even $5 per year. What I'm missing?
It can easily be exploited with bots and growth workflows. While that remains, I don't see a lot of demand from advertisers.
Anyone know of a windows client that doensn't show unread message counts of archived (not muted) chats in the system tray?
Open the Telegram app, go to Settings > Notifications
Turn off "Include muted chats in unread count" and "count unread messages". They are under the "Badge Counter" section.
https://i.imgur.com/pzH614U.png
Turn off "Include muted chats in unread count" and "count unread messages". They are under the "Badge Counter" section.
https://i.imgur.com/pzH614U.png
Didn’t WhatsApp solve this problem? Were they self-sustaining before the Facebook acquisition, or am I misremembering things?
If the founders want to become billionaires maybe self sustaining is not the goal.
All we know for sure if that they had some revenue. No one knows if they were reliably self sustaining. Especially as you grow, the costs balloon.
yup, 1$/year IIRC.
I'd be okay with this, as long as there's an anonymous way of paying.
I'd be okay with this, as long as there's an anonymous way of paying.
Was that revenue enough to keep the lights on indefinitely? I’m having a hard time Googling this, but I recall an article circa the FB acquisition which stated that WhatsApp’s subscription fee model + efficient backend programming had already become self-sustaining. Wish I could find that article now.
IIRC it's unclear how many people ever ended up paying. The first year was free, and then (many?) people got free extensions, year after year.
The only thing that annoys me in tg is zero feed management. To keep up you have to constantly check the channels one by one
Please just let me pay for Telegram.
And let me implement my own payment provider for bots because the Telegram ones suck.
And let me implement my own payment provider for bots because the Telegram ones suck.
I'm an early adopter for telegram, and I'm right there with you.
I signed up in 2014, basically the first or second time it hit HN, and over time, I've built out a pretty decent social network on there, and run a dozen or so specialty community chats. I'd be glad to pay them something, 25 a year or so, even if I don't get anything special from it (though, if I did want something, it'd be better access to support if I should need it), just as part of making the service sustainable.
I signed up in 2014, basically the first or second time it hit HN, and over time, I've built out a pretty decent social network on there, and run a dozen or so specialty community chats. I'd be glad to pay them something, 25 a year or so, even if I don't get anything special from it (though, if I did want something, it'd be better access to support if I should need it), just as part of making the service sustainable.
How did Telegram spend a billion?
Have you used it? And any other messenger? I find the difference in quality (speed, features and their consistency, synchronisation of data and notifications in realtime, data transfer speed, few if any bugs, cross platform, etc. etc.) quite noticeable. I'm actually moving away because it's too good to have no known business model and still no encryption to speak of after a decade of claiming they're the privacy messenger.
Briefly, so far I didn't see a difference to other messengers. But still 1 billion is equivalent of about 5000 man years of effort.
So they will do what made some people hate Whatsapp when Facebook acquired them?
More reason to offer an ICO and make it all about governance and ownership.
Isn't that title a little contradictory?
I would absolutely love to advertise there. Facebook, google, youtube, telegram all have cryptocurrency advertising banned... Which is rather disgusting, seeing as it's the highest appreciating asset class in the history of mankind.
> highest appreciating asset class in the history of mankind.
This kind of value proposition is exactly why crypto ads aren't permitted on many ad platforms. There are too many fly by night operators selling snake oil to the desperate and the greedy. Why would an advertiser assume liability for that?
This kind of value proposition is exactly why crypto ads aren't permitted on many ad platforms. There are too many fly by night operators selling snake oil to the desperate and the greedy. Why would an advertiser assume liability for that?
Telegram’s desktop client for Mac is great—it’s fast, it has feature parity with mobile clients, and it works. Messages get delivered and stay in sync, and I don’t need to somehow link my phone to my main machine via QR code to act as a gateway.
And if they introduced ads, with an option to pay a subscription to remove them? Here’s my…well, it’s Telegram, so here’s my cryptocurrency, I guess…but here’s my money.