Telegram Ad Platform
promote.telegram.org
promote.telegram.org
I know the ads plan will expand (I could see ads in 1000+ person groups and not limited to only channels)
My personal thesis has been to wait and watch as telegram is forced to either shut down or turn evil to raise enough money for their finances. They tried to stay away from fiat by launching <del>TRON</del> TON but that got shut down, and now they're asking for money in euros.
Once this ad program succeeds (it better do, telegram badly needs a revenue stream), it becomes a lynch-pin in telegram's model of success - their bank accounts are prone to seizure the next time a scandal blows up on telegram.
Edit: The ToS defines "Company" as "the legal entity which belongs to Telegram group of companies and has a right to enter the Agreement with the Advertiser for the Services". Sounds like they're extending the "hidden-hosting" to "hidden-shell-companies" as well. Would advertisers be okay entering an agreement with an unknown legal entity?
TON. Really not sure why the ended up shutting it down, but I wonder why they would not go directly with Bitcoin on Lightning instead of reinventing the wheel.
They were sued by the SEC: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-146
No reputable brand is going to want to touch this for a long time unless they clean up their service which they have been notoriously reluctant to do.
Even E2E encryption is supported via the Secret Chat feature!
Telegram is pretty good.
The best thing I like about it is that it's an instant setup on every phone and doesn't require the Google backup integration which can take an hour to restore. Also the fact I can run it on multiple devices simultaneously is also kind of a big deal. Their API is also pretty amazing tbh.
I wish all my friends were on tg instead of wa and i would uninstall the later in a heartbeat.
> I wish all my friends were on tg
What I think is interesting is that the barrier to entry to join a new messaging service like Telegram is very small. The barrier to leave WA is very high. So to ask people to join Telegram and continue to run WA is trivial for them.
And yes, I prefer to not communicate with people who would make such demands of me.
I trust Whatsapp with my data like I trust 409 internet princes with my credit card. Their reputation precedes them.
At some point last year, amidst the skyrocketing popularity of the app and WhatsApp coming under heat for various reasons, someone at Telegram thought of a fantastic (read: user-hostile) way to "increase engagement" - Show a persistent panel on the home screen with the name of every contact on your phone who uses Telegram, in the hopes that you would click one of them and engage them in a conversation.
It's such a wild invasion of UI that it continues to blow my mind that it was greenlit. The panel cannot be disabled and lives right underneath your chat list where it has no business of appearing. They refused to remove it or at the very least, make it optional, and instead asked everyone to use their suggested workaround which, spoiler alert, isn't applicable for a large userbase [1]. I had to revoke "Contacts" permission to get rid of the panel.
This single change has made me quite bitter about the direction of Telegram.
Is it possible that they pushed that updated only to certain regions ?
Its legal domicile is in the UK.
I much prefer the model of e.g. Signal: Just don't store any data of your users that is none of your business to begin with.
Looking elsewhere I can find mention of other companies and domicile hopping, including an American LLC.
The main one seems to be in the British Virgin Islands right now. I don't know how much that's separate from the UK or if the one in the UK being only a sub-company exempts it from surveillance, but it's not something I would rely on for sure.
Why not? Why allow any third party to collect data on you and store it for an unlimited time?
Signal has a desktop client as well (no web one, unfortunately) – I also haven't seen any hiccups there.
Yes, this is 10 or 100 times more complicated to get right when using end-to-end encryption, but it's clearly doable, and Telegram has finally been proven wrong empirically about there being a dilemma of security vs. usability in messaging.
Yes, they still lead the field in usability, but the encrypted competition is past the hard cryptographic hurdles, allowing them to focus on the front end.
In the new multi-device beta, desktop clients only sync about a year's worth of messages, though. Not sure if this will change in the final product.
Whatsapp UI and search are OK but if you have a very long chat history then simple things like jumping to a specific date are difficult. I end up guessing a medium-to-rare search term and using the search history to jump back.
I'd much prefer having control of the data with simple export to my own device for my own search/analysis, but none of these apps do it.
It just doesn’t work right. It’s good for typing with a keyboard, but other than that, it’s always lagging behind the phone, which has to be online.
This is an unsubstantiated marketing claim, nothing else. It's sad to see it get repeated here, by and for a technical audience that really should know better.
Big thumbs here to TG: I don't use WhatsApp. Never installed it, never will. TG is not just about "not being FB": the UI is really cool and the synch between several devices (say phone and laptop) is flawless.
Now... You wrote "easy to remain anonymous" but AFAICT you cannot register a TG account without a phone number? Or can you now? As in: can you only download the desktop app and do all your messaging from you computer, without ever installing anything on your phone and without ever giving out a phone number for verification?
If you're an LGBTQ user in many countries, you might want more anonymity than a "please don't show this to other users" button.
But I wouldn't trust TG on that area either. If a government really wants to, they can certainly exploit encryption flaws in the TG protocol and get you. Not as easy as tracing SIM cards, but definitely possible and within govs reach
You do need a phone number to register (I use my google voice number), but you can select who can actually see it on your profile. When you join groups, it isn't exposing it to others unless you add them as contacts - and even then you can disable from sharing with those contacts.
“Many users have suggested introducing the ability to disable official advertisements on Telegram channels. Today we are announcing two more changes:
1. Users will be able to disable official advertisements.
We have already started work on this new feature and look forward to launching it this month. It can be issued in the form of an inexpensive subscription, which will allow any user to directly financially support the development of Telegram and never see official advertisements in the channels.
2. Channel authors will be able to turn off official advertisements in their channels for all users.
Some channel creators would also like to "turn off" advertisements in their channels for all users. At the moment, we are calculating the economic conditions for this option. Advertisers will soon be able to place an "invisible" ad on any channel that - assuming there is sufficient cost per impression - will result in no ads on that channel.
Let me remind you that Telegram as a messenger will always be free of ads:
Telegram will not show promotional messages in your chat list, private conversations or groups. Advertising will affect only large channels - services where there is already advertising, and the support of which leads to the greatest costs on the part of Telegram.
We will continue to work on features that will allow Telegram to break even. The interests of users and content authors will remain our priority in this process.”
> Users will be able to disable official advertisements.
> in the form of an inexpensive subscription,
I'm sure over 95% of modern tech companies take money in return for their services.
I won't be surprised if in the next few years ads will be added to private convos anyway along with some form of profiling but at the same time users will graciously have an option to disable these with one-time payment or subscription.
I've seen this small-steps tactics way too many times to know how this gonna end.
> You appear to be using an ad blocker that may prevent pages on the Telegram Ad Platform from working as expected.
> Please turn off your ad blocker or add promote.telegram.org as an exception to manage your promoted messages. > Close
Oh, well ^^
I was a Telegram user for year until I completely switched to Signal 2.5 years ago.
I'd pay 1-10€ a year for a Telegram experience with e2e and without ads.
Why can't the old WA model be used ?
Sure, you and I may be happy to pay this, and may even fork out the fee for our loved ones, but how many other people would do that?
I was thinking exactly that while reading the beginning of your post. I'd be ready to accept a part of my fee is to allow others to use the service but it'd need to be balanced so freeloaders don't tip off the balance. Maybe premium stickers packs or some vanity stuff. Or they can `choose` to pay by granting access to their ad profile and marketing tracking ?
So, not impossible at all but will need someone to take a principled stance.
I don't think WhatsApp was profitable on that model, and they also had surprisingly low costs (due to great server tech, small team) that I suspect Telegram can't match.
One thing concerns me though (if I were to ever end up wanting to advertise) - no external links! Giving the audience to the thing I’m advertising is most of the reason I’d spend money on an ad.
I wonder what sorts of ads are useful if they’re text-only? They qualify no “external” links, so maybe you could still have links to another product-specific channel where there are external links?
Context-based advertising is great for web content (and should have been made the standard years ago), but in a chat room, I'm not so sure.
How does Telegram pick the relevant "topic"? From the channel description alone? I don't think that would be accurate at all. They do it for now, but who knows what will happen in a year or two! Their profit margin is on the line, after all.
I know Telegram can read along with most messages sent through their platform, but up to now they didn't have a reason to do it. Now, I'm not so sure.
>To ensure and maintain high quality of ad content, a minimum advance payment of €2,000,000 is required to launch ads on the Telegram Ad Platform.
>Of this payment, Telegram holds €1,000,000 as a deposit, and makes the remaining sum available to the advertiser to spend on displaying ads.
>If the contract is terminated and the advertiser spent less than €10,000,000 on ads within the preceding 12 months, the €1,000,000 deposit is withheld by Telegram.
>If the contract is terminated and the advertiser spent more than €10,000,000 on ads within the preceding 12 months, the €1,000,000 deposit is returned.
This seems like a solution to Telegram's cashflow problem - doesn't look like it has much runway left.
As a user, I find it great that my privacy is not impinged upon. I hope it will work for them!
Be sure to leave feedback with companies to let them know that you found them through Telegram.
That’s because the ad and the auction that precedes it, collects data for further targeting.
Telegram ad product and infra are probably not ready to scale right now so they decided to go with manual process. Probably already arranged a few big accounts prior to announcement.
The FTC breaks down anti competition regulation into monopoly-related conduct, which this is obviously not because telegram is a complete non-factor in the messaging space, and horizontal conduct, which this is not because telegram has no near-peer companies with whom they agree not to compete.
Contracts also include termination terms but upfront deposits like these are more rare.
TIL telegram public channels are Google indexed
>Your request to add funds has been sent.
>We have placed your account on the waiting list and will send you a notification as soon as the platform becomes available to you.
These conditions are not for regular ad buyer, but for an agency that commits to the volume and re-sells it to businesses.
But what do I know. I don't have 1 million EUR as a deposit lying around.
Telegram is home to many cryptocurrency communities, the first thing I thought of when I saw this was that it's going to be heaven for phishers/fraudsters targeting those.
So the crypto space definitely has money to invest on advertising, if anything to remain up to their promises a bit longer.
There’s a lot to unpack here. Telegram has plenty of runway left, probably. Pavel Durov is not strapped for cash. That’s just a fact. They’ve been pushing out regular updates with features and other development work that could’ve easily been delayed for the ad platform if it was a priority. They’ve actually deployed bandwidth intense things like video calls, too, which ostensibly are lower priority.
What this does to me is signal that Telegram wants to engage with serious advertisers to start with. Because the content is injected into channels, of which there are many, it likely is easier to abuse than other networks. So the solution is to make the barrier to entry sufficiently great that only serious advertisers will buy in.
So, I’m less inclined to say they’re in need of cash flow than they are wishing to finally make money, and not do so with low quality content.
I love Telegram over anything else like others, but I don't think you can say "that's just a fact" unless Durov's finances are public, which as far as I know, they aren't. So yeah, probably he isn't strapped for cash, but that's not a fact, it's a guess.
>[..] his wealth increased from $3.4 billion in 2020 to $17.2 billion in 2021. The wealth of Telegram founder increased exponentially recently after the app became popular.
Forbes is also estimating (fancy guessing), doesn't make it into a fact.
> net worth
Also not cash, which would be needed to fund Telegram
> vast majority of which comes from Telegram ownership
Also means you wouldn't be able to use that net worth for funding Telegram, as that's where the net worth comes from anyway.
>To pay the bills, Mr. Durov is issuing investors $1 billion to $1.5 billion of company debt, with the promise of discounted equity if the company eventually goes public, the people briefed on the plans said.
>To repay its creditors, Telegram is selling five-year bonds that pay roughly 7% or 8% a year
Durov is rich, but he's not going to spend all his fortune on running Telegram and re-paying these investors. He's also refused to raise money via equity in telegram, so advertising is the only way to keep the lights on telegram.
I wonder how this will go down with advertisers used to the usual pay-per-click and being able to demographically target their audience before spending their ad dollars.
That depends, some platforms already have their demographics skews so that might be indicative
> pay-per-click
Most platforms even tracked conversions with their pixels, but that will become a no-no as we're nearing the death of the 3rd party cookies. Companies will most probably start relying on Market Mix Models that model the impact of investment into ads on different channels on Revenue also taking into account things such as effect lags etc. Facebook has recently introduced an open source solution for this. I work for a company that also provides their own solution as a part of our platform and the interest is definitely picking up, so this issue might become less of an issue due to how the overall advertising ecosystem evolves in the next few years.
As far as I can see it didn't attract many upvotes in the meantime so I guess flag abuse was detected.
Meanwhile, ad-driven model is a much more comfortable and reliable source of profit (since you are popular and free, users won’t leave, so no need to work hard fighting for customers).
Imagine if instead of three whales we had a variety of paid messengers, all forced to interoperate with each other and offer APIs for third-party client software because that’s what paying users requested.
I'll happily pay to support not just my client but who ever wants to connect to me. This is not some big yearly cost given how cheap hardware and bandwith have become.
But a question to HN: why have we not seen a mass-market adoption of a P2P, non-centralised messaging system that requires no external services to work?
Mesh and other sorts of networks are cumbersome and have not reached mass-market adoption, so what (technically) is stopping a true E2E P2P platform?
https://matrix.org/blog/2020/06/02/introducing-p-2-p-matrix/
Personally, I would like to use Briar on my Tailscale network, but the lack of Briar desktop app and the need to build custom Briar app to support Tailscale interface is a blocker. Or, a self-hosted Signal app.
Telegram has the best messaging app by UX and it's not even close. It's fast, reliable and it just works.
Try getting your mother to use Matrix. Verifying sessions of chat participants is such a disgusting user experience I wonder if they employ /any/ graphic or UX designers.
Perhaps you meant the Element client?
Disclosure: I work with real open protocols.
Because they seem to like it and, based on my experience with the military being able to run it independently is a major consideration for them even for smaller systems.
On-premise software is nothing new. But the fact that some software can run on-premise and can interoperate between instances does not mean that it is a protocol. Mattermost can do that, is it a federated protocol too?
If the former entails an adopted RFC, isn't it common practice to prove need via a product before proposing a standard?
Asking because I'm at work on a safer, decentralized protocol for email, TMTP.
Are you saying that the Matrix authors won't submit an RFC?
In terms of contributions to the Matrix spec; from a quick eyeball at https://spec.matrix.org/unstable/proposals/, there are 95 different authors, of which 31 work for Element (the company formed by the original team who created Matrix). Or to slice it another way, there are 498 spec change proposals there, of which 358 were written by folks at Element (so 70%). Meanwhile the protocol itself is defined by the independent and neutral Matrix.org Foundation non-profit (https://matrix.org/foundation).
In other words, accusations that Matrix is entirely defined or controlled by Element are untrue - by the time we created Element there was already significant contribution from the wider community, and these days there are loads of other individuals and companies like Beeper, Famedly and even Ericsson contributing to the spec.
Edit: oh, and Rocket.chat is adopting Matrix too, which refutes the GP comment even more...
You and your company has all the leverage and no sane independent developer will invest in your protocol because he'll always have to play the catch up game.
So, to resolve it, the spec core team (which is a mix of element employees and community members) went through the two proposals to compare them and concluded that joepie91's approach is better. So we're about to kill off MSC2962 and merge MSC3216 into the spec instead.
Please stop with all the disinformation - it'd be way more constructive to invest your energy into improving XMPP than trying to make Matrix out to be evil.
However, I already have the answer on how you plan to deal with such conflicts, you've said it yourself [1]. I'll quote:
> The idea on Matrix is that you say "Hi, I talk Matrix CS API 0.4" and be done with it - and you end up with much more social pressure to keep up to date with the current latest spec, because otherwise you are simply falling behind
If we say it in a less courteous manner, "Once we introduce changes, your independent implementation will be cut off from our network, and if you'll need several more months to implement changes, well, tough luck".
You see, I'm not saying Matrix is evil. It's a rather developed product, just like Mattermost or Flock. But a federated protocol it is not. Please stop advertising as such, and I'll have nothing to say about it.
Clearly there's an axis with security on one side and convenience on the other. Tilting fully to either side results in a terrible experience. For me, Telegram strikes the perfect balance. Secure chats have fantastic privacy, while the UX isn't totally garbage. The trade-off is that chats are non-E2EE by default.
Signal's has the axis tilted all the way to the "security" end, so that the product is unusable if you aren't a technical expert already.
Could your mother figure out how to encrypt an email message using GnuPG? Absolutely not a chance.
Could she figure out how to send a message on ProtonMail that encrypts it client-side for her? Probably.
Signal is GnuPG. Telegram is ProtonMail.
How so?
What's wrong with Element's UX? It's improved an awful lot lately.
Wow, I really disagree with this statement.
> Could your mother figure out how to encrypt an email message using GnuPG? Absolutely not a chance. [...] Signal is GnuPG.
My parents are not technical people, yet they can use Signal. My siblings as well. I think the UX is approximately on par with WhatsApp (when I was using it).
They have done a great job when it comes to UX. Ultimately I would like to push them towards Matrix, but the UX is not here yet for most clients. Fluffychat comes close to it, unfortunately I'm experiencing issues logging in with my account (timeouts), so I can't recommend it yet.
Sorry, just to confirm: are you saying Signal has worse UX than Element?
Coming to Matrix, the Element Web/Desktop app is ugly and has bad UI/UX. Its unintuitive to use. Fortunately, you have tons of choices with Matrix. Cinny on desktop has a very neat and clean UX.
On Android, the Element app is good enough, but if not Fluffychat feels just like WhatsApp.
The fact that nobody really wants a true p2p platform: you don't want to lose all your stuff if you lose the device. It is clear that federated services like email are superior for most users bar some real hardnuts mindfixed on privacy.
Why not provide encrypted backups to a personal cloud storage service? Even WhatsApp does it these days.
Ah, btw, how will a true p2p platform work on iOS? What entity will send you push notifications when there are messages for your device?
True P2P on iOS: No idea, I merely claimed that a lack of backup options is not the reason we don't have it.
In practice, nobody wants any of that. The vast majority of users are perfectly happy (and for the right reasons) with federated and centralised services like email or WhatsApp/etc.
For example: https://cabal.chat/
There isn't a way to monetize an open P2P protocol, or even a "captive user base" to sell to VCs for a cash exit so not a lot of development has been done on that area. (And I would be highly skeptical of any "blockchain" P2P Chat proposal)
technically nothing. even email kinda fits the bill if you squint hard enough.
realistically though, the vast majority of population will always gravitate towards streamlined workflow provided by centralized services, and the rest of us are dragged along.
> “ Considerations for distributed and decentralized technologies from the perspective of a product that many would like to see decentralize.
> Amongst an environment of enthusiasm for blockchain-based technologies, efforts to decentralize the internet, and tremendous investment in distributed systems, there has been relatively little product movement in this area from the mobile and consumer internet spaces.
> This is an exploration of challenges for distributed technologies, as well as some considerations for what they do and don't provide, from the perspective of someone working on user-focused mobile communication. This also includes a look at how Signal addresses some of the same problems that decentralized and distributed technologies hope to solve.”
It routes messages through an Onion/TOR-like network of nodes that others volunteer to run. In return for running those nodes, they generate the Oxen cryptocurrency, similar to how mining Bitcoin works.
This way, it's not fully centralized like WhatsApp/Telegram/etc, but also solves the issues of devices directly communicating, like what happens when the app isn't running on the phone.
- it came as a hidden message at the very end of the message timeline
- it broke unread count on many clients (since it was hidden, it was unread, and there were no notifications other than the unread count on the app's icon that wouldn't go away)
- the test messages ended with "how will it affect you/users?) and instead of leading a post with an answer, it simply dumped you in Pavel Durov's chat
- they looked exactly as any other message in the timeline with no indication it was an ad
Presumably all this will be fixed, but people are kinda pissed.
I've only ever heard it used when talking about batshit American cults.
Not exactly a target audience i want to reach.
If you have experienced IRC, it's basically that. You have smaller rooms (groups) and bigger ones. Every room has their active 1%, their own rules and customs and after a while, their own inside jokes etc.
Otherwise, it's a bit like reddit because you join groups that are usually about a certain topic / niche (general programming, JavaScript, Counter Strike, cooking, what have you) and it's also a bit like twitter because there's often a "hot topic" for a day or two with small things happening in between. Also because no one in their right mind treats those chats like actual group chats, as in, you don't read all the messages you missed. After a weekend i have at least 10k "missed messages".
This comparison is also cool because it reminds you to treat telegram just like reddit and twitter: it's public basically. Anyone can join groups you're in and log every message (there's plenty bots that do that) and they can see the contents of a public group even without joining. It's not encrypted by default and frankly, barely anyone uses secret chats, if only because ppl are on their desktop half the time anyway
I am in over 100 chat rooms of varying sizes. Ranging from groups with 100+ members, in which I usually just ignore, and check from time to time to see what is going on. Groups of 20-100 members in which more close friends keep together, and is more similar to IRC chatrooms with tech talk and the ilk, and then a then a lot of groups with 5-20 members, in which friends organize parties, going out for dinner, etc... (I organize my chat rooms into folders for ease of access)
Telegram has been my favorite form of communication because of great performance, very good sync between PC/mobile, great search (I can find messages from 5 years ago with no effort!), and ease of use. My experience with Telegram pales in comparison with any other chat program I have used for how I like to stay in touch with friends.
Facebook is the biggest platform for far-right content, child pornography, terrorism, whatnot.
The only time i come across it is when a youtube news show what's to laugh at some Q people.
Signal and Threema went kinda popular too the more media talked about WhatsApp. But Telegram was THE IM app with simply the most fun functionality.
On the other hand I also know people refusing to use Telegram so nobody would think they are in weird channels now.
Adding to that I may also have a privacy focused circle, I am sure you'll find a group of people here too who life the exact opposite
But yes, recently nutcases have taken to the platform since there is no big tech corp behind it to moderate the platform. They do delete illegal groups and spam, but if it’s legal and not causing disruption to other users, it’s almost certainly not getting deleted.
* is fast
* has native apps
* has amazing stickers
* lets you share almost unlimited media
* has a decent bot API
* is secure enough for my personal use (though I don’t pretend to use it as a secure messenger nor do I advocate for it if this is important for someon. Please do not start an argument about this again, search up telegram on hn.algolia for plenty of comments about security)
* calls and video is not as high quality as FaceTime but way better than WhatsApp
The clients are all opensource, and the APIs usable by anyone.
It has tons of little nice features as well. E.g., organizational directories, great search, fine grained notification settings, … .
There is also voice chat support, which is pretty nice.
> Any Telegram users here?
So those who target the vulnerable are definitely focusing on Whatsapp right now. The self-selection is working very well in Telegram's favour, though that probably is just a happy side effect.
And yet they don't mind the lack of encryption?
Note that I live in a nation in which I support and trust my state. Yet I do not trust advertisers and other entities who seek to influence my opinion. I'm sure that for those who live in states where the government is viewed as adversarial then Signal would be a better choice.
> Note that I live in a nation in which I support and trust my state.
Given the above: Do you trust any state's government?
> They are jurisdiction hopping to evade that responsibility.
> Given the above: Do you trust any state's government?
I don't think we should. In the context of messaging at least, encryption should mean E2E encryption.
Bragging about client-to-server encryption is pointless nowadays, when 99% of the internet is already encrypted this way.
Not as misleading and potentially harmful as saying "Telegram is encrypted" as a blanket statement, because: 1. as I said, the client-to-server encryption is not noteworthy (almost everything has that) and it shouldn't be enough for privacy-conscious people. 2. even though Telegram does offer some e2e encryption too, its availability is quite limited and not representative of the typical Telegram usage.
Sure, I was being too dismissive there. But I don't like how Telegram gets brought up as a "private messenger", in the same context as fully e2e-encrypted messengers like Signal or even Whatsapp.
For all intents and purposes, Telegram is more similar to apps like Discord or Slack, seeing how most of the comms can be read by anyone who has access to the server. And Telegram can only be used with a phone number, so in terms of anonymity it's even worse than those.
This is absolutely true and a nice comparison at that, thanks! I will try to use that in the future.
Most of my non-technical friends using Telegram are convinced that it's more secure than WhatsApp. Even many non-technical news outlets are propagating these claims. It makes me incredibly sad.
They are promising a usable Signal, but instead are providing a Discord with mandatory phone number registration.
Why resort to such dishonesty? Just let the product speak for itself.
No, because defaults matter. Users have a habit of never changing them.
I wish there was a simple and catchy word for describing a "vulnerable to the government" encryption
As a term, e2e encryption is quite short, and is also easy to search for, if someone does not know what it is.
The latter is a very good indicator of misplaced faith in shoddy news outlets propagating these claims uneditorialized.
> "because it's encrypted and more secure than WhatsApp".
As a result, governments aren't getting access to Telegram, advertisers are.
Yes, Telegram has the superior UI compared to both. But for me, if I had to name an alternative to WhatsApp, Signal is the first coming to mind. The biggest (only?) reason being the lack of e2e encryption per default for 1:1 chats and complete lack thereof for group messaging in Telegram.
And even if e2ee in groups wasn't important for me, the lack of e2ee support in the desktop client breaks the usability argument completely for me. It's such a pity, because I'd love to recommend Telegram if they'd just use some variant of the Sinal Protocol for everything, just like Matrix, XMPP and WhatsApp are doing it.
No numbers needed means it's a no-brainer using Telegram for group communication where you may not want everyone in the group to know your number. Some university modules have large Telegram groups for everyone reading the course.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't be suspicious though, because Signal is a cautionary tale already (MobileCoin debacle and closed source server code).
Signal could run on benevolence. Telegram's debts were at 770M USD earlier this year. (https://archive.md/mGtgp)
Telegram isn't really just a messenger, it's an anti-censorship system.
In fact, Telegram's burn rate would have to increase by roughly 3,000 to 5,000% for it to even make a yearly dent in his fortune, assuming he's invested in any kind of reasonable mix of assets.
The burn rate was "few hundred million dollars per year", as per Durov a year ago. Telegram has grown 50-60% in users since (350M->550M as per the graph on Wikipedia).
One extra point is that burn rate was likely a fraction of that figure for most of Telegram's history when it was much smaller. Telegram really only exploded to meteoric heights within the last few years.
50-60% increase in users also isn't necessarily indicative of a similar rise in expenses. The cost to store files and stream them has basically only ever gone down, and you can easily cut service costs by optimizing data storage, archiving content etc.
Loading content from years ago on Telegram is very slow, indicating heavily optimized tiered storage. They're clearly optimizing for burn rate to some extent.
No matter how much they optimize, Durov can't keep it running infinitely.
I know only one: keeping the app running as a service, with all associated drawbacks. The app we develop (an XMPP client) does just that.
On iOS, it is not possible at all. To make an app receive messages and notify user about them, you must use APNS, and to do that you have to upload your keys to Telegram.
There's a cost involved - it depends on the number of subscriptions. Though, from my rough estimates, 1 in 5 subscribers end up getting it. There are detailed channel statistics that measure the impact of each post made.
I notice the discussion here is being done by most users, who don't have channels or not on Telegram either. There has been a gradual acceptance of Telegram here, which is vying for a serious social media alternative. WhatsApp plans to roll out "Communities" in response to Telegram channels. However, its ownership is nuclear waste.
They have several innovative features in pipeline. I use channel to relay video calling (I can record it and host unlimited users). The video calling has improved by leaps and bounds in past several weeks and has become a serious alternative to Facetime.
That's really, really great. :)
Another day HN are extremely happy to see Telegram getting ads to support their services. Because they are competing with Facebook / Whatsapp.
May be after all it isn't Ads are evil or bad, it is ads from Facebook or Google are bad?
But in the advertiser-directed comms, it's clear you can have an external link in a button below the ad text.
Am I not seeing something obvious or is it a contradiction?
Whether you created entire country dividing conspiracies just to sell some Q-labeled coffee mugs to the followers, or promoting your next crypto service, Telegram is there
Its pretty much the best
I also don't have exact numbers but private chats are heavily used in some parts of telegram (mainly the grey or black markets)
Most communities don’t need that, so telegram is good enough for them.
There is alot of crossdrift, on crypto telegram nobody cares if they are currently browsing discord or telegram
However, nearly all these big channels have some kind of ads already. As long as they don't spam their new ads, my users likely won't find it intrusive at all
> Ads must not promote psychoactive substances, alcoholic beverages, tobacco products or fast food.
Restaurants. Restaurants offer the slowest and least efficient way to eat. Cooking at home allows for healthier diets and more control over ingredients.[1]
[1] Durov's message on his 37th birthday