Compared to WhatsApp, they do have access to all messages from every person (except for the few people using secret chats) and group so I'd not be very surprised if they started to mine that data somehow if they really want the money.

Compared to WhatsApp that is owned by a massive megacorp that bought it for over $10bn and that has already tried to start mining metadata from it I would say Telegram still has its advantages.

(FWIW: I prefer Signal.)

Prefer Signal myself too. It's a bit hard to switch over from WhatsApp and tried to use it at least with my spouse. One feature that Telegram and WhatsApp miss, is being able to send yourself a message. On Signal you can do this and it's very convenient for taking notes, sending passwords (laptop <--> phone) and for saving bookmarks. I used to share interesting bookmarks from HN to my email, but that quickly got cumbersome to sort out.

Telegram has the saved messages chat which is a chat with yourself.

Agreed. This actually works incredibly well on Telegram to sync snippets and files between devices.

FWIW you can also create multiple groups with the same person(s) so you can keep one "group" chat with your spouse for chores, shopping lists etc and another for photos of the kids, birthday planning, funny stuff etc.

This probably works in most messengers though, but it is a nice hack anyway.

OT but if it helps you, Whatsapp does actually allow you to send messages to yourself (sort of)! You can create a Whatsapp group with you and one other person in it, and then remove them from the group. The result is a group with only you in it that you can use to send messages to yourself.

You can do it on Telegram chatting with the "Saved messages" pseudo-user.

Signal has the Note-to-self feature that's E2EE. Telegram's chat to self is not end-to-end encrypted.

How does attacking Facebook dismiss the fact that Telegram has your raw conversations and can monetize them?

It is only "attacking Facebook" as much as it is also just "stating again what is already publicly known about Facebook".

This was all in the news: Facebook lying about not being able to connect WhatsApp and Facebook, then trying to weasel their way out of their previous statements.

For all the problems Telegram has they don't seen to have our raw messages more than GMail has your raw emails.

Yep: unlike WhatsApp and Signal they can, technically produce them. (Edit: I forgot to mention: WhatsApp chat logs gets uploaded unencrypted to American Cloud providers. I have less against the police and Americans than many other here but lets not pretend end-to-end encryption helps for anything when you backup the data unencrypted with everyones favourite villain it seems: NSA)

And yes: like with GMail if Telegram has done exactly what they said and done it properly it would probably take cooperation of at least two sysadmins on different teams and it woumd also probably trigger alarms east and west.

At least that is my understanding.

What is the advantage when Telegram has less money and more data?

Same advantage as buying a car from someone you don't know versus buying from a known fraudster and bully?

Yes: in Telegrams case I might possibly, maybe at some time be taken advantage of.

In WhatsApps case it would surprise everyone greatly if one isn't - sooner or later - take advantage of.

Which would make me not want to use it if I was a revolutionary in a totalitarian state that could get access to that data.

Telegram having access doesn't necessarily mean the totalitarian state gets access, though I see your point

What about totalitarian state with 1,000,000 USD of extra cash to spend to buy a zero-day, that then exploits the server and reads any message from there?

That would be a great reason to stop using it. If they never plan to use that data then they're idiots for designing a system that makes them liable for all that user data they accumulate in case it leaks. And if there's one constant on the modern planet that is "everyone will get hacked at some point". So that's another good reason to stop using Telegram. Like right now.

I honestly don’t think they do.

I really think that’s just a personal project of a Russian billionaire that has enough free time and pretty much unlimited resources.

Yeah, that’s what their website claims. But it isn’t.

Public estimates of his net worth are hard to believe.

Not a billionaire, at most 2-3 hundred megabucks cash as his Russian assets are rendered effectively worthless, and he burned himself a lot trying himself in investments, real estate, and, in general, burning money on expensive things, including telegram, like no tomorrow.

I am still very suspicious at how he managed to flout around Kremlin for so long.

> I am still very suspicious at how he managed to flout around Kremlin for so long.

His first successful project (VK) was founded and gained popularity partially using money of really weird investors some of whom were related to Kremlin.

Also keep in mind that Russia was just a kleptocracy until around 2008-2010 and only after 2012 when Putin decide to get back presidency everything started to go really sour. So it's not surprise they taken control of the company away from him shortly after.

Why are the people is downvoting me? Did Durov create a non-profit or a foundation lately?

Telegram it’s currently a business and Durov keeps the control...

>Why are the people is downvoting me?

Because you made a definitive claim without providing any evidence, or even your line of reasoning.

Normally I’d ask you for some kind of proof, but I know you won’t be able to output any of it.

The fact that there’s no proofs, alone, says something. Telegram has been around for 7 years. There’s no external funding and yet the project lives and grows. It’s either being funded from the Durov’s pocket, or from elsewhere. Take your pick.

To better understand who Durov is, look up the story about him throwing money to a crowd out of a window of his VK office.

He also believed that foreigners should be able to buy land in Russia to create small states within the country.

I would not (and I do not) believe in good intentions of this guy, at all. And in fact it is you (or Durov himself) who should provide a proof that Telegram is not getting funded by governments, being one of the most popular communication tools around. Especially after the failed ICO. The source of funds should be transparent.

Proof? The ICO they did isn’t enough? They act as a business, Durov keeps control, it did not create a foundation or a non-profit. What extra proof do you need?

I totally understand where you're coming from but in order to be better than Durov who claimed Signal had backdoor without any evidence, we can't say he's selling user data without evidence.

We also can't claim he's secretly handing all non-end-to-end encrypted group chats and one-on-one messages to Kremlin, or that he's an oligarch who made his money by spying on Vkontakte users. We also can't say it's extremely suspicious his arrest warrant only lasted two months, or that journalists who visited Telegram offices in Dubai heard the company Telegram shared floor with had never even seen Telegram employees enter the offices. There is no evidence Telegram is an intelligence agency front. None. We should periodically remind people of this.

Some of you might remember me as the guy who defends Telegram, and I still am: most of the claims I see here are less than well researched it seems.

The thing you bring up here however is my main issue with Telegram: I want it to be sustainable line WhatsApp once was.

Payments with bots as an entrance. Trying to copy WeChat?

https://core.telegram.org/bots/payments

Update, from the doc: «Telegram does not charge any commission for using the Payments API.»

I would make companies pay if they want to use these channels for promotions.

Seeing how averse they are to putting any kinds of ads on the platform, I think they might find the middle ground by helping make ads in channels go through the official route. Basically, right now, some channels post "sponsored posts", which nets them some payment. By getting involved, they could probably help people not get ripped off, take a small cut of the fee, and make those sponsored posts integrated a bit better, maybe highlighted somehow. So no ads in the app, only in some channels, so that people can leave if they hate the ads.

UI is neat.

And very responsive

Signal doesn't make money either.

Signal is a non-profit though no?

Non-profits can and should make money. That’s a common misconception and a big problem for charities are people think they are being greedy if they are making money regardless of the impact of that money.

A non-profit just means profit isn’t their goal.

I don't think that's what it means, I think it means they have to re-invest benefits in the company no? Signal does get money from donations

they still have to cover their cost somehow.

Signal was given $50M by Brian Acton (WhatsApp co-founder), I think they will be fine for a while.

Signal will most likely run on dividends from shares/investments owned by the Signal Foundation.