I found Durov's plans to monetize Telegram most interesting.
Team features (competing with Slack/Discord?), ad tools for telegram channels and premium stickers. Whilst keeping all the existing Telegram features.
Team features (competing with Slack/Discord?), ad tools for telegram channels and premium stickers. Whilst keeping all the existing Telegram features.
Allowing me to pay would be yet another right direction for Telegram, but i just can't move past the audit (and to a lesser extent, FOSS)
Where possible, I prefer to type on my proper desktop keyboard, because I am a stubborn old man and you kids with your phones, and Telegram is just so nice in that context. It uses no resources, the UI largely gets out of the way, and message sync and delivery is 99.9% reliable in my experience. (Looking at you, Messages app.)
I do worry on some level that, by not paying, I am the product in some sense. And I wish they had a full security audit. But, I have so many other potentially insecure ways for people to get my info, and really I’m too boring to stalk anyways, so I just can’t make myself too bothered.
Do you refer to the server-stack? How would that being Open Source help you when you cannot ever verify what a server actually runs?
Primarily yes, and while true - that's an extreme and a bit pointless, imo. I can say the same about Linux, which i'm on now, as i've never verified what i'm _actually_ running. Or Matrix servers i'm connected to, and what they're _actually_ running.
Yet the idea remains that something some people have analyzed is better than something "no one" (outside Telegram lol) has analyzed.
Your question feels as if we may as well all be running entirely closed source. I'm unsure why the benefits and/or supporting arguments for FOSS need to be stated here. Is there a degree of your question i'm missing?
edit: Oh and, of course, the FOSS nature is even more important in the case where the majority of Telegram communication seems to lack security. If this was a zero knowledge platform i'd be far less concerned about their serverside implementation.
I understand the confusion. I was talking about the current situation where you cannot run your own server or even choose amongst servers.
It is pointless if you can view the source-code of that server, but have no way to check if the one server that you can ever use, runs that code at all.
It makes sense in a federated or decentralised setup, where you can run your own servers, choose instances, or even build your own version of the client with other backend-urls baked in. For Telegram all it offers is validation that the code is good, or not good. Without any power to do anything about that.
That's literally impossible with any closed-source server-side software. You can't even inspect the binary as you can with a client.
And here's the server implementation you can also run yourself: https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server
Telegram has also been exploited multiple times, while signal has held up against a US federal subpoena.
https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/4/13161026/signal-subpoena-...
[1] https://calyxos.gitlab.io/calyx-fdroid-repo/fdroid/repo?fing...
Just that Signal is not on F-Droid. Which has a bit of a history and some drama. It was there, log ago. Still textsecure back then.
Sure, you can build it yourself. And from there, with some hoops to jump, install it on your phone over adb (it's what I did). But that is far from fdroid or some other app store. E.g. there are no updates, which is a crucial feature in a security-critical app.
Source?
I'd go as far as saying it's by far the best. I have used the word unnerving to describe the fact it's so beyond the rest of the competition, yet free and without a viable business model.
I use Signal with friends and Matrix with other nerds.
Given the open-source nature of tg, I would imagine someone would put together a Messenger client based on tg source code. I guess that would solve many problems with FB's own messenger.
This has been bothering me as well but seems to be solved now.
All current messaging features will be free but new team features etc will be paid IIRC and AFAIK.
Well, we'll have to see how that pans out...
Telegram has no option for "Only allow contacts to message me", it turns out.
After lots of messages, they eventually offer to auto archive and mute people not on your contacts, but it's still fairly visible on the app.
Perhaps Telegram should work on better abuse management before adding voice chat! I used to love the app but now I am considering uninstalling.
Maybe even easier is pressing and long holding the name of someone who has sent you a message. In the vertical dots menu is then an option to block the user.
I'm running v7.1.3 from F-Droid.
I do agree though that an option to block direct messages from those not in my Contacts, or at least some kind of review process to allow a specific message from someone not in Contacts, could be a nice addition.
The hold + three dots thing isn't there on iOS sadly.
Even something like Instagram's message requests would be a welcome addition!
You can't reject images from non-contacts either. It's either images from everyone or nobody.
Does your chats list get filled up with these unsolicited messages from randos?
It seems like they should at the very least offer a mechanism to accept a contact request before any messages can be sent.
It's also an interesting example in the vastly different experience that different demographics can have in an app - say, women, or minorities often the recipients of abuse - and how blind an app maker can be to that experience if it's not intentionally studied.
It was, then telegram desktop popped up with "it appears you are getting a lot of messages, would you like to automatically mute + archive those not in your contacts" or somesuch. Still, the archived folder is at the top
The only thing that stopped it was deleting my message from the community. Guess I won't be participating again :(
It certainly is an interesting example - I know nothing of their team, however things like this are also another reason as to why a diverse team is important!
Basically "Ads companies are horrible and not to be trusted. Btw, welcome to our new business model - ads"
--
As Telegram approaches 500 million active users, many of you are asking the question – who is going to pay to support this growth? After all, more users mean more expenses for traffic and servers. A project of our size needs at least a few hundred million dollars per year to keep going.
For most of Telegram’s history, I paid for the expenses of the company from my personal savings. However, with its current growth Telegram is on track to reach billions of users and to require appropriate funding. When a tech project reaches this scale, typically there are two options – start earning money to cover the costs, or sell the company.
Hence the question – which path will Telegram take? I’d like to make a few points to clarify our plan:
1. We are not going to sell the company like the founders of Whatsapp. The world needs Telegram to stay independent as a place where users are respected and high-quality service is ensured. Telegram must continue to serve the world as an example of a tech company that strives for perfection and integrity. And, as the sad examples of our predecessors show, that is impossible if you become part of a corporation.
2. Telegram is here to stay for a long time. We began developing our apps for our personal use over 8 years ago and have come a long way since then. In the process, Telegram changed the way people communicate in several aspects – encryption, functionality, simplicity, design, speed. This journey has just started. There’s much more we can – and will – bring to the world.
3. In order to make points 1 and 2 possible, Telegram will begin to generate revenue, starting next year. We will do it in accordance with our values and the pledges we have made over the last 7 years. Thanks to our current scale, we will be able to do it in a non-intrusive way. Most users will hardly notice any change.
4. All the features that are currently free will stay free. We will add some new features for business teams or power users. Some of these features will require more resources and will be paid for by these premium users. Regular users will be able to keep enjoying Telegram – for free, forever.
5. All parts of Telegram devoted to messaging will remain ad-free. We think that displaying ads in private 1-to-1 chats or group chats is a bad idea. Communication between people should be free of advertising of any sort.
6. In addition to its messaging component, Telegram has a social networking dimension. Our massive public one-to-many channels can have millions of subscribers each and are more like Twitter feeds. In many markets the owners of such channels display ads to earn money, sometimes using third-party ad platforms. The ads they post look like regular messages, and are often intrusive. We will fix this by introducing our own Ad Platform for public one-to-many channels – one that is user-friendly, respects privacy and allows us to cover the costs of servers and traffic.
7. If Telegram starts earning money, the community should also benefit. For example, If we monetize large public one-to-many channels via the Ad Platform, the owners of these channels will receive free traffic in proportion to their size. Or, if Telegram introduces premium stickers with additional expressive features, the artists who make stickers of this new type will also get a part of the profit. We want millions of Telegram-based creators and small businesses to thrive, enriching the experience of all our users.
This is the Telegram way.
It will allow us to keep innovating and keep growing for decades to come. We will be able to launch countless new features and welcome billions of new users. While doing that, we will remain independent and stay true to our values, redefining how a tech company should operate.
https://core.telegram.org/bots/payments
^ first result for telegram bot payments
Sad to see those plans gone but what else there is to expect from authorities if you're about to make their jobs 10x harder.