"We are getting 100 new registrations every second."
twitter.com
twitter.com
This is speculative, but I think Telegram actually has enough momentum at the moment to overtake WhatsApp as the main instant messaging service in the Netherlands--if they are able to adequately handle the massive amount of new registrations. The general public definitely seems to be uncomfortable privacy-wise with the acquisition of WhatsApp by Facebook. So much for privacy being dead.
https://twitter.com/search?q=telegram%20lang%3Anl&src=typd&f... Telegram is definitely a trending topic on Twitter in the Netherlands.
Which currently appears to be dead, BTW.
They Show HN'd to much controversy [1].
Started a $200,000 'crypto challenge' [2] which lots of people hated on [3].
Then someone compromised their protocol and they gave away $100,000 [4].
[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6913456
[2] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6931457
[3] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6936539
[4] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6948742
EDIT: /launched/Show HN/s
They "launched" several months before their appearance on HN. Though I guess it doesn't really qualify as a true launch without a "Show HN" thread, right?
I stay with xmpp.
Edit: looks like it might be a spike because WhatsApp is currently down: https://twitter.com/wa_status/status/437319926605680640
A third possibility is that they are being wilfully misleading.
> Q: Why do you use SHA-1 in the place of a MAC?
> Technically speaking, in our implementation SHA-1 can be seen as a specific case of a MAC (but not HMAC), since it is also used as an encryption key.
> We use it, because it is faster, especially when you need to send photos or large videos (Telegram supports videos and documents up to 1Gb). And since this means still requiring at least 2^128 operations (instead of 2^256 with, say, SHA-2) to even begin trying to break this scheme, the trade-off seems fair.
(Though it doesn't make no sense, and I personally find the illustration more cute than offensive, it was probably a poor choice.)
I fully agree on it being questionable, though.
I'll continue to use WhatsApp for another month or so, until TextSecure becomes available for iOS, after which I'll be helping everyone I know switch to it.
To be clear: I've never used WhatsApp either - so I'm not really supporting the 'WhatsApp > Telegram' idea.
"We need a way to communicate over the internet". Email was born.
"We need a way to communicate with groups". Messaging boards and mailing lists are born.
"We need a way to communicate quickly and privately". Email is now only a tool for spam, registration mails and professionalism. AIM, ICQ and MSN are born. Email lists are "when you click on that list button in Outlook" to the general public.
"We need a way to communicate on the go". Messaging boards die. People use Facebook to chat. Twitter grows. Old-style protocols can't keep up despite offering more. SMS is that thing that does exactly the same but costs money.
"We need a way to communicate with groups again". No one was using boards anymore so no one developed new and edgy alternatives. Discourse is born. Nothing new is offered, but JavaScript! Ajax! Frameworks! Apps!
"We need a way to communicate quickly and privately again". Old protocols are reinvented. Poorly. WhatApps and competitors arise. People using XMPP and OTR die of loneliness. Solved problems are solved again. Poorly. But now there's an app for that. Even on Windows Phone (never seen one in the wild).
Time to reinvent Email. Or not.
Either that or they don't work well with our phone number format.
No, seriously, it seems to be blowing up just in Europe and it's 01:27 AM in GMT+1 right now (western Europe). I was able to get my CLI client activated on Linux something like an hour ago.
Edit 01:30: And activated web client too.
IMHO, Telegram's (open source) value proposition is more up do date with the current multi-platform ecosystem per user.
Whatsapp is down, so people are looking for alternatives of course. Sad is not textsecure instead.