Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Despite its imperfections, which in my cursory understanding are largely academic, Telegram is an amazing messenger.

It's very quick, feature-rich, and developer-friendly.

Perhaps best of all, it's a nonprofit. So I can expect, with a high degree of confidence, that the organization won't abruptly switch course one day to appease investors.



Telegram has solved the communications problem for me mostly. Before telegram, I had, all of the legacy messenger services (AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Skype, etc), plus Slack, IRC and whatever I used at work - now I have Telegram, and no longer sign into those legacy services anymore.

What makes telegram a winner for me is that the desktop is a first class citizen, I'm in front of a computer like 18 hours a day - I don't want to have to stop what I'm going and respond on my phone. Yes, perhaps Signal is more secure, and I may try it someday.. but for now.. Telegram has largely solved my 'communications' problem.


Are you using Telegram instead of Slack at work?


Work is still skype for business, plus iMessage between co-workers.


I know few people who do.


Discord has done that for me, but only because all my friend groups are willing to use it. If you just want a messenger that works well, there are a number of good options - that unfortunately don't talk to each other.


The criticism is only about the crypto, which is weird and historically unsafe (and not on by default).

Other than that it is a great app. Some of us just think the bar is e2e by default.


A non-profit simply means that it cannot hold money from one year to the next. To achieve that, a "non-profit" could give millions as executive compensation or contract inefficiently to for-profit "partners" who collect the gains. Not saying Telegram is doing that, but the structure shouldn't be adding to a vote of confidence in any way.


>Despite its imperfections, which in my cursory understanding are largely academic

1) no video calls

2) voice calls just now being rolled out

3) encryption is opt-in and limited to one-on-one conversations

4) requires a phone number for authentication

The "academic" criticism is about its crypto being poor. The rest is regular stuff which is a deal breaker even for many non-academics.


> Perhaps best of all, it's a nonprofit.

That doesn't appear to be true:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/11...

If they're a nonprofit, where is their 990 (or equivalent)?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: