[HN Gopher] Telegram: Voice Chats 2.0:Channels, Millions of List...
___________________________________________________________________
Telegram: Voice Chats 2.0:Channels, Millions of Listeners, Recorded
Chats
Author : malikNF
Score : 134 points
Date : 2021-03-20 12:42 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (telegram.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (telegram.org)
| posedge wrote:
| With each of those blog posts I'm fascinated by the pace at which
| they release new features.
| sdfhbdf wrote:
| Telegram still missing message reactions. Kind of surprising at
| this point with the speed at which they pump out features.
| aiven wrote:
| This is the kind of feature that can burn servers :) Especially
| at telegram scale
| rPlayer6554 wrote:
| It's interesting to me that of all companies, Facebook has
| not added reactions to WhatsApp, but Signal has them. I would
| have thought the roles to be reversed.
| newscracker wrote:
| The feature set sounds like competing with Clubhouse in a sense
| while providing a lot more, but discoverability is quite low and
| the UX is not great. Telegram has started putting more features
| behind the scenes in the last year or so - one could start a
| secret chat from the chats list before, but now it's hidden in
| the person's profile under a "..." submenu. This voice chats 2.0
| feature is also implemented in the same way on groups and
| channels. It could've been in the menu that comes up with the
| audio/video recording button or in the attachment menu for
| quicker access.
| beigeoak wrote:
| Does anyone know any details about the engineering and design
| teams at Telegram? Encryption qualms aside, the UX and
| performance of Telegram is so far ahead of WhatsApp, Facebook and
| Signal that it's quite mindboggling.
|
| Is there any reason why a behemoth like Facebook is unable to
| achieve similar levels of polish? Is it a cultural issue,
| bureaucracy or a fundamental difference in the attitudes of
| developers in Eastern Europe vs those in the United States?
| blue_box wrote:
| I really like Telegram and these features but I don't use it
| because they don't have end2end encryption as default. Also you
| can't create a secret group chat that you can start from your
| phone and continue from your Mac.
| darthrupert wrote:
| I think it would make it slightly more difficult for them to
| profit from the chats.
| TheChaplain wrote:
| Just out of curiosity, what kind of discussion do you have that
| require e2e?
|
| Myself I use TG extensively with friends, family, girlfriend
| and I think I've used secret chats once when the gf wanted to
| send a naughty photo.
|
| It's not that I don't have anything to hide, it's just I choose
| what to say according to the environment and I feel the
| features of telegram far outweigh the con of not having e2e at
| all times.
| TedShiller wrote:
| Can you send me a zip archive of all your chats? It would be
| fun for me to read and ok with you since you have nothing to
| hide. You can contact me here.
|
| If you don't send me your chats then I assume you want
| privacy after all.
| TedShiller wrote:
| Still waiting
| heyoni wrote:
| Me too. It shouldn't take this long!
|
| Ps: hard drive image clones should also do the trick.
| samat wrote:
| Not op, but what would you give him in return? Sending some
| random purist on the internet my personal texts is one
| thing.
|
| Sending it to the company promising secure communication,
| company which delivers the best convenience messaging UX in
| the whole fucking world without any ads...
|
| Well, if you can't see the difference...
| samat wrote:
| Don't get me wrong, I love complete e2e!
|
| I am choosing iMessage with complete e2e every time I
| can, but iMessage is iOS only and telegram is many years
| ahead in user convenience even from it.
|
| You might as well continue pushing for pgp for secure
| email.
|
| User convenience is not optional.
| kitkat_new wrote:
| you conflate iMessage with what is possible with e2ee
| TedShiller wrote:
| Ok, turns out he likes privacy after all. Don't lie please.
| proactivesvcs wrote:
| About the weather. Cute manitee gifs. Politics. Jokes. Rants.
| About life, the universe and everything.
| randomhodler84 wrote:
| Oh no. No. "You have nothing to share." E2e by default or
| GTFO. This isn't about your secrets. It's about making your
| regular discourse indistinguishable from secrets. There is no
| con to e2e, and many cons for snake oil/plaintext.
| AnyTimeTraveler wrote:
| Actually, there are many cons to e2e, especially with
| bigger groups. I've read a lot about Signal's and Matrix's
| development and there are many problems that don't exist
| when sending data over a simple SSL connectiom to a server.
|
| For example: You have a group with 100 Members, do you
| encrtpy each message you send 99 times for each recipient?
| Not likely. So you use a send key that everyone else can
| decrypt.
|
| But then what if the group changes? Does everyone has to
| replace their send-keys, because the party that left can
| still decrypt all those messages otherwise.
|
| That means you have to do n-1 key exchanges whenever a
| party leaves or joins. Otherwise it wouldn't be secure
| anymore.
|
| There are some clever ideas about key exchanges, but so far
| the messengers that implement them are not widely used and
| since there is no profit in it, no one is in a hurry to
| compete.
| xorcist wrote:
| > There is no con to e2e,
|
| No multi device support.
|
| No transcoding for video.
|
| No shared history for group chats.
|
| Scaling get progressively harder with increasing
| participants.
| rakoo wrote:
| > No multi device support.
|
| That's an issue with your client and protocol, not with
| e2e
|
| > No shared history for group chats.
|
| Same
|
| > Scaling get progressively harder with increasing
| participants.
|
| Same
|
| > No transcoding for video.
|
| Now that's a more palpable issue. Also no size reduction
| of photos which is probably more used as a media.
| vetinari wrote:
| > That's an issue with your client and protocol, not with
| e2e
|
| That's issue with distributing the keys among multiple
| parties.
|
| > No shared history for group chats.
|
| > Same
|
| Exactly. What's e2e good for, if you give keys to the
| entity that does the archiving?
| rakoo wrote:
| If you have 2 devices, one device can send messages to
| the other, all e2e encrypted. It's the same for group
| chats: if you are part of a chat, any participant can
| send you the history of the chat.
|
| All those issues are protocol-related. E2E only
| stipulates that the message can't be read between the two
| ends, it doesn't say you can't send a technical message
| for making a better UX.
| vetinari wrote:
| > if you are part of a chat, any participant can send you
| the history of the chat.
|
| Re-sending parts of the chat kind of removes the
| guarantees of the secret chat (just like backups defeat
| the purpose of e2e). These apps have also expiring and
| non-screenshotable messages, you don't want to resend
| that.
|
| Ideally, all messages sent should be only decryptable by
| given set of keys (i.e. one key for each device used by
| each party of the chat; or, depending on the size of the
| message, ephemeral key used for message encryption,
| decryptable by each device that is supposed to receive
| it). Now the key distribution is the non-solved part.
| rakoo wrote:
| "Secret chat" is something only Telegram and pseudo-
| private messengers have. No application can ever provide
| assurance that messages aren't backed up. When it's sent,
| it's sent; you don't control it anymore. Re-sending the
| message is something you can only assume can be done. The
| experience given with expiring messages is just that: an
| experience.
|
| Now, secret chats don't necessarily mean "this message
| can only be read by one device". To answer your second
| paragrah I disagree: a message shouldn't be sent to a
| given set of keys but to a given set of participants.
| Each participant may have one or more devices and should
| be able to read messages whatever way they want.
|
| Also key distribution is "solved" by not counting on the
| user to do it but doing it for them: see what Matrix,
| Signal, Deltachat, XMPP (OMEMO) and probably others are
| doing.
| vetinari wrote:
| I disagree; if you are sending to participants instead of
| devices, you don't really have e2e. Any private key
| should never leave any device. If the user want to use
| several devices, his client should enroll multiple keys
| for him and the message should be decryptable by each of
| these keys. Also, the user should have visibility into
| which keys can decrypt the message, to avoid enrolling
| any keys behind his back.
|
| That the user won't see on his device any messages sent
| before enrolling the new key? That's the point.
| Otherwise, the user should use the normal/non-e2e
| messages.
|
| Thus, the key distribution as it is "solved" is being lax
| with them.
| est31 wrote:
| Doesn't even have to send the full history of the chat,
| it can only send you the encryption key while the history
| is stored on the server.
| vetinari wrote:
| (At least Threema does it this way): Server doesn't
| really store the messages long term; only until the
| receiver picks it up. With just two devices - sender and
| receiver - you have a guarantee that once the single
| receiver picks it up, there's none else to do the same
| and can be safely dropped.
| rakoo wrote:
| Indeed, and you can go even further: with e2ee there is
| no need for central server beyond dumb distribution of
| opaque blobs. So the history can be exchanged by the
| whole network and the encryption keys shared recipient by
| recipient on a need-to-know basis. That's what bitmessage
| is doing, for example
| parhamn wrote:
| > There is no con to e2e, and many cons for snake
| oil/plaintext.
|
| Is this true? From anecdata every e2e encrypted platform I
| used is much lower quality than the alternatives (iMessage,
| Signal, etc). Things like multi-device sync don't work that
| well. Is this really just a coincidence? Telegram claims
| they can't provide the same quality chat (and snappy cross
| platform crispness is really their competitive advantage)
| with e2e. Is this just a fake limitation?
| newscracker wrote:
| Technically, E2E increases the complexity of the
| applications and servers, but it shouldn't really affect
| quality of chats or messages. One area where this will be
| a problem is in search. Telegram claims that is can
| search chats faster because those are on its servers, and
| anecdotally, I have seen Telegram's search being better
| and faster than the other platforms I use or have tried
| (they have to search only on the local device, which then
| has an impact on battery life for phones and tablets).
|
| The other bigger drawback with E2E is that the servers of
| those platforms don't store the chats permanently (they
| store it for about 30 days or so to deliver the messages
| to devices when they come online, depending on the
| platform). So syncing chat history across devices gets
| affected by this choice (it could still be done, but the
| complexity and speed of syncing grows a lot).
|
| Wire does E2E for all chats and syncs all chats across
| devices. But it too doesn't sync chat history on newer
| linked devices. It also took the (what I consider as
| inferior) choice of using Electron for its desktop apps,
| which makes it quite sluggish.
| kitkat_new wrote:
| > he other bigger drawback with E2E is that the servers
| of those platforms don't store the chats permanently
| (they store it for about 30 days or so to deliver the
| messages to devices when they come online, depending on
| the platform).
|
| Not true: Matrix is fine with storing messages
| permanently
| sarakayakomzin wrote:
| > Just out of curiosity, what kind of discussion do you have
| that require e2e?
|
| Where as your conversations couldn't possibly be made illegal
| by your government in the future?
| rakoo wrote:
| There are two kinds of things someone may want to hide: legal
| stuff and illegal stuff. It's a real shame that governments
| have succeeded in conflating the two and forcing us to take a
| position that is not the one we really have. Truly a
| brilliant move.
|
| Of course you have something to hide, it's called privacy.
| There is absolutely no reason your private life should be
| public by default, so why accept it ?
| TheChaplain wrote:
| I fully understand. Privacy is important to me, but it's
| not a binary state.
|
| What I talk about to my friends, girlfriends and family are
| all on different "privacy levels". If the chats with my
| friends were disclosed, I'd probably be made a laughing
| stock at most but it's no big deal. My family ones would
| probably be most boring, and the ones with my girlfriend
| could be material for a soap opera, and embarrassing.
|
| But it's not the end of the world if someone at Telegram
| can read them of if they were disclosed by some hacker
| group.
|
| My point is that it is an amazing chat app and have way too
| many benefits for me to not use it, but I _am_ fully aware
| that there are a chance what I write can be read by someone
| else, and therefore I take care what I write about.
|
| Oh, and thank you for keeping the discourse on a respectful
| level. :)
| dschuessler wrote:
| > If the chats with my friends were disclosed, I'd
| probably be made a laughing stock at most but it's no big
| deal.
|
| That's a privilege many people don't have. Think about
| sexual preferences, controversial opinions or health
| problems that can be disadvantageous in their career or
| when obtaining insurance. Or that aren't problematic now
| but might be in the political climate in 20 years.
|
| You could argue that people worrying about this still
| have the choice to use an E2E encrypted messenger. After
| all different needs are served by different products. But
| if this behavior becomes the norm, people who hide
| possibly disadvantageous information can be identified
| simply by their messenger use, partially defying the
| purpose of hiding their information in the first place.
|
| I consider this a very strong argument for privacy as the
| default regardless of particular people's lack of a need
| for privacy.
|
| EDIT: Removed remarks that could be misunderstood as
| snark.
| rakoo wrote:
| I have never used Telegram but not once have I ever read
| anyone being displeased with the experience; it's always
| about how it is the pinnacle of messengers. I'm a bit
| jealous about that because I want to experience it but I
| don't want to be tied to an app that doesn't do privacy
| by default.
|
| Privacy is definitely not binary, but to me it is a bit
| like using Libre software. You can't realistically expect
| to live on the 21st century internet with the entirety of
| services and viewpoints it offers and only use Libre
| software. At this point you have to either follow your
| values and stick to a very small part of it that is
| guaranteed to work on your browser rejecting non-Free
| javascript, or you can make concessions and accept a bit
| of proprietary bits here and there. But you can still
| decide to be Libre-first and accept non-Libre from there,
| on a bit-by-bit basis. That is what I and others are
| talking about with e2ee first: Instead of asking "what is
| worth being hidden and being made public", I feel the
| more just mindset should be "supposing everything is
| private by default, what can I disclose and to whom".
| Your threat assumption regarding your conversations is a
| good example: of course every software has bugs and all
| your messages could be read by Telegram. But you're
| behaving as if Telegram _might_ read it one day, when I
| believe you should believe as if Telegram _is_ reading it
| every day. The danger is not that Telegram can make a
| soap opera out of your drama but that the whole world
| can.
|
| As you say you take care what you write about and that is
| a good thing to do. So, following up: if you don't want
| anyone to be able to read it, then let's go to the end of
| this and make sure no one physically can read it, by
| default. Instead of asking what kind of conversations
| require e2e, let's ask what kind of conversation _doesn
| 't_ require e2e
| Krasnol wrote:
| I don't know how one can't be aware that Telegram is pretty
| well known for it's illegal content 2021.
| newscracker wrote:
| Actually, you can't start a secret group chat at all in
| Telegram. It supports secret chats only for chats between two
| people, and that's where it's tied to the devices used for
| initiating the chat.
| vetinari wrote:
| Secret chat with multiple devices or with group has the key
| distribution problem - what's good to receive the message, if
| you cannot read it? When there are exactly two devices, you
| avoid that problem.
|
| That's why it is not on by default and why it doesn't work
| for groups. Most users favor convenience over strict e2e.
| kitkat_new wrote:
| > Secret chat with multiple devices or with group has the
| key distribution problem
|
| which is solvable
|
| Signal and Matrix have two distinct approaches to this
| vetinari wrote:
| Sure, it is. But it has its own problem.
|
| Signal, for example, copies the received messages into
| per-device queues that belong to the same identity. The
| problem for the user is that the user has no visibility
| into what is really assigned to his identity and where
| copies of his messages are routed encrypted by which
| keys; it could be used to implement anything between
| CALEA to Prism access.
|
| I'm not familiar with the Matrix approach, so I won't
| comment on it.
| nikivi wrote:
| Curious how this can work for recording podcasts.
| hojjat12000 wrote:
| That is the first thing that I thought about. I know a lot
| influencers (political and not) on telegram. They can host live
| radio shows (and record it and call it a podcast). It's great.
| I'm curious what the community comes up with these new
| features.
| CharlesW wrote:
| I assume as well as any VoIP system, which (in my experience)
| is "meh", although the results can be very tolerable with a
| little knowledge, care, and post-processing.
|
| An ideal system would automate a "double ender"[1] setup,
| streaming low-bitrate voice for the conversation itself but
| also recording uncompressed/losslessly-compressed audio at both
| ends, then delivering high fidelity sync'd audio as one file
| per participant (for easier editing) to the podcaster.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phone-sync
| pearjuice wrote:
| This is what I would expect. Though Clubhouse is a novel idea,
| it's relatively easy for a plethora of social networks to
| implement something similar and immediately have the network
| effect of their already immense userbase. On
| Instagram/Youtube/Facebook people can already go live with video.
| I think we will very quickly see similar audio-rooms on these
| platforms.
| rvz wrote:
| > On Instagram/Youtube/Facebook people can already go live with
| video. I think we will very quickly see similar audio-rooms on
| these platforms.
|
| Exactly what happened to Slack being killed by Microsoft Teams,
| Meerkat killed by both Periscope (Twitter), Instagram Live.
| Snapchat suffered the same thing with Instagram Stories; but
| although they survived, user growth slowed.
|
| We will see lots of audio-rooms on IG, Facebook, Twitter, etc
| and Clubhouse will join Meerkat as another victim of this VC
| hype machine, who ironically are hyping them on Twitter!
| uniformlyrandom wrote:
| > Slack being killed by Microsoft Teams
|
| The rumors of Slack demise are greatly exaggerated. Mostly by
| Microsoft.
| dangoor wrote:
| e.g. [Twitter Spaces](https://help.twitter.com/en/using-
| twitter/spaces)
|
| I already have access to Spaces and have been considering
| trying it. It's not clear to me that anyone would show up,
| though: they have to be using the mobile app, and I only have
| ~1800 followers. Maybe people will get used to it? The thing
| about something like Clubhouse is that the audio chat is _why_
| people are there.
|
| I am curious to see how it plays out.
| kitkat_new wrote:
| Element seems to implement it as well: https://matrix.org/open-
| tech-will-save-us/11
| behnamoh wrote:
| IG (and then FB) stole the "stories" idea from SnapChat. I
| don't see why they wouldn't do the same with this feature.
| barbazoo wrote:
| More and more I appreciate Signal for what it is. A no nonsense
| (okay, stickers) messaging tool for people that know each other
| in real life. I hope it never changes into something "social".
| eptcyka wrote:
| Yeah, but I can't get my family to switch if the UX is subpar.
| rPlayer6554 wrote:
| How long ago did you use signal? The UX is on par with
| WhatsApp. In fact I've found tiny things that signal does
| better (it groups sending multiple pictures into on "album"
| message instead of sending one message per picture like
| WhatsApp)
|
| The only place I could agree WhatsApp has a significantly
| better UX is with backing up messages.
| StavrosK wrote:
| WhatsApp does the album thing as well.
| rPlayer6554 wrote:
| Hmmm interesting. It hasn't been doing it for me
| recently. Maybe it's a setting.
| dawnerd wrote:
| Telegram also does "albums"
| rPlayer6554 wrote:
| Yes but UI/UX around E2E is not good.
| sofixa wrote:
| > The UX is on par with WhatsApp
|
| So as the GP said, subpar.
| isatty wrote:
| No it's not. Does it even have a native app yet?
| eptcyka wrote:
| I use it everyday. Its just not. Video calls are strictly
| worse, forwarding images is strictly worse, no ability to
| share history in group chats, the UI is just inferior. Some
| of these, I can live without, others are really preventing
| my friends and family from using the app.
|
| Also, scheduled messages. Ability to message people without
| exposing ones phone number (a real blocker from using
| Signal for some group chats that are privacy minded).
| Default camera is very bad, image picker is slow and picks
| images from all dorectories instead of my main camera dir.
| My gf wasn't even aware its possible to send multiple
| images in a single message until I pointed it out. Telegram
| has none of these issues :/ I really want to love signal,
| its my daily driver. But its incredibly hard.
| fnord123 wrote:
| Signal on desktop is very slow. It's a very unpleasant
| experience.
| rPlayer6554 wrote:
| That is fair, the startup time takes forever.
| eptcyka wrote:
| The desktop app has managed to corrupt its database
| multiple times since I started using it a couple of
| months ago. Its really bad for an app to do that in this
| day and age, mind you. This is btrfs levels of bad.
| jiofih wrote:
| I and a ton of friends use Telegram purely for messaging, none
| of this gets in the way.
| barbazoo wrote:
| You're 100% right. I'm just worried that by going more
| "social", chances increase of Telegram going the same way as
| WhatsApp and Instagram.
| tmp538394722 wrote:
| Getting bought by Facebook for billions?
| barbazoo wrote:
| Personally I rather it didn't, yes. Being sold to
| Facebook just means I have yet to switch messengers
| again.
| simias wrote:
| I'm all for no-nonsense, but I'd qualify Signal as barebones in
| some regards. Two features that routinely annoy me: no way to
| synchronize previous messages when linking a new client, no way
| to change the spellchecker language in the desktop app.
|
| I want Signal to succeed but I always hesitate to recommend it
| because it always feels like an early beta product to me, not
| something ready for prime time.
| Scene_Cast2 wrote:
| I'd love to fully switch to Telegram - it's snappy and has a nice
| UI. However, video calls are low quality at the moment, and
| that's the one thing holding me back.
| cordite wrote:
| Looks like they are prioritizing a path towards being a social
| influencer platform. To displace Twitter, Youtube, Instagram,
| does facebook even count anymore?
| 88840-8855 wrote:
| I know nobody who is still using facebook. I wonder that it
| still exists.
| katsura wrote:
| I've been using Telegram for a few years now, but I wish they
| allowed you to use it without phone number.
| qecez wrote:
| At least you can hide it.
| antihero wrote:
| This looks bloody neat - Clubhouse seemed annoying and exclusive,
| whereas Telegram feels a lot more inclusive.
| rvz wrote:
| Clubhouse is yet to release an Android app whilst their main
| competitors are already there and copying them quickly to
| death.
|
| When the VC hype brigade knows that Clubhouse is losing steam,
| they will aggressively push for another company to acquire them
| or worse; they shut down.
|
| Might as well remove the invite system now to allow the rest of
| the small iOS userbase in, I guess.
| behnamoh wrote:
| Exactly. I don't like how CH was only introduced for iOS and
| follows the same annoying strategy that Gmail used before
| (invitation).
| newscracker wrote:
| What's even more annoying is that Clubhouse requires access
| to the entire contacts list/address book if you as a user
| would like to invite someone else. You can't invite someone
| by just entering their phone number (since a phone number is
| the only way to register for it). It doesn't have to be this
| way, but the Clubhouse team doesn't seem to care.
| qecez wrote:
| I deleted my account the moment I realized this. It's
| incredible most people don't seem to care.
| behnamoh wrote:
| Seems like the CH team is more after your data than provide
| a useful platform.
| malikNF wrote:
| We call it the Cartmanland[1] approach. Although I think CH
| is a really nice idea, that too much exclusive thing kept me
| away from getting an account there even if I have an invite
| to the platform.
|
| [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartmanland
| throwawaysea wrote:
| Does Telegram perform any censorship or deplatforming like
| Twitter when it comes to controversial topics (like illegal
| immigration, trans issues, race issues, etc)? I see from this
| post they have public groups but I also worry that these tech
| companies are all too willing to deplatform those that disagree
| with the progressive political platform, especially when they try
| to make the turn towards monetization. That's really my deciding
| factor for adopting something new, as I don't wish to give any
| power to those who are against free speech principles.
|
| It seems like Telegram has had their own pressures from the anti-
| speech/anti-freedom crowd so maybe they're on the other side of
| this?
|
| Apple sued for not banning Telegram
| https://reclaimthenet.org/apple-sued-by-pressure-group-for-n...
|
| Google sued for not banning Telegram
| https://reclaimthenet.org/now-its-googles-turn-to-be-sued-fo...
|
| Telegram CEO says reject being "held hostage by tech monopolies"
| https://reclaimthenet.org/telegram-adds-25m-users/
| newscracker wrote:
| Telegram can and will remove content and users who violate its
| policies. Since the content is not end to end encrypted by
| default (except in one to one secret chats), Telegram has
| access to scan/listen/process the content. There is also a
| content moderation team that works on handling content removal,
| though it seems like it has mostly focused on terrorism in the
| past. The FAQ [1] has more details. So does the ToS. [2]
|
| [1]: https://telegram.org/faq
|
| [2]: https://telegram.org/tos
| kyriakos wrote:
| Telegram has by far the best desktop experience from all
| messengers. Smallest memory footprint and snappy UI.
| whistlecow wrote:
| It would be of such niceness if telegram was fully end-2-end
| encryption.
| vetinari wrote:
| That's exactly what secret chats are.
| tridenrake wrote:
| I am still waiting for the day when I can initiate a secret
| chat from my desktop client.
| kennydude wrote:
| At least on macOS you can
| kitkat_new wrote:
| what about being federated?
| timvisee wrote:
| Their mobile app is fantastic as well.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| Recently I migrated off Whatsapp like many others and the Linux
| desktop experience is really good, in particular the
| performance of search impressed me. Compared to the Whatsapp
| Web client it is much faster. If I'm not mistaken it's a Qml +
| Qt app which is actually very pleasant to write. Not sure why
| not more stuff is built with it these days.
| rvz wrote:
| The simplest explanation for this is the fact that the desktop
| apps are native apps and not based on the massive and sluggish
| electron framework.
| kyriakos wrote:
| Even for a native app it seems to be well developed because,
| on Windows, for example I have it running at the moment and
| uses 25mb of ram, the most I've seen it at was 45mb.
| pelagicAustral wrote:
| This is so accurate I feel like I can just die now.
| WolfRazu wrote:
| I don't think this necessarily has to hold true (Discord for
| instance have implemented their apps really well), but in
| reality this holds true for most electron apps in my
| experience.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| Could just be me, but the Discord app is full of glitches
| and random pauses for me. The app is better on my phone,
| but on several Linux distros the feel of the application is
| just off to me. Switching servers and channels has a tiny
| but noticeable delay that I haven't seen native
| applications have.
|
| Unfortunately, there aren't many native applications any
| more. At this point I'd prefer a Windows application that
| works in Wine over yet another "cross-platform" Electron
| webbrowser-with-builtin-website.
| mtgx wrote:
| Didn't Discord rewrite the app in Rust a year or so ago?
| tridenrake wrote:
| Discord is unusable at times too. But compared to other
| Electron shits, Discord is above average when it comes to
| performance. But in the end, when compared to Native apps,
| performance wise, Discord is still shit. It's nowhere near
| Telegram.
| Strum355 wrote:
| As a heavy discord user, its performance is just nothing
| compared to a native app (gtk etc). Its notably not native
| in performance
| [deleted]
| WolfRazu wrote:
| True, but it is acceptable rather than having a
| noticeable delay etc. which I observe in other apps.
| e12e wrote:
| I don't know - clicking links seem really sluggish in
| discord - both on Android and on my surface 4 pro. It's
| odd, clicking on an image link in a browser is
| instantaneous on either device.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| It has a lot of noticeable delays, they're just hidden by
| the interface.
| 4ad wrote:
| > Discord for instance have implemented their apps really
| well
|
| No they haven't. The discord electron app is a trash fire.
| I use discord in Safari. It's just as bad UI and UX and
| slowness as the electron crap, but at least I get a few
| more hours of battery life...
|
| Since I removed the electron garbage from my phone, my
| battery life tripled from one day at most to three days...
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| It is very nice indeed. I only wish some keyboard accessibility
| was better.
| mrccc wrote:
| I'm hoping that messaging apps will add a feature that allows you
| to transcribe voice messages after you received them. I find it
| rather annoying to listen to five minutes of audio when I could
| read a message in less than a minute.
| Nux wrote:
| Or at least ffwd 2x 3x like YouTube does, this would be easier
| to implement.
| nethunters wrote:
| You can change the speed to 2x currently.
| SXX wrote:
| It's will take some effort to use, but actually someone made
| Telegram bot to do exactly this: @transcriber_bot
|
| It's open source, but works through Yandex Translation API:
|
| https://github.com/charslab/TranscriberBot
| antirez wrote:
| There is also thr voicy bot.
| vezycash wrote:
| Recorded chats
|
| Before opening the link, I thought it would be a replay of chats
| - simulated live chat.
|
| Instead of being overwhelmed with 100s of past chats, chats come
| in one at a time. (Speed up, pause, play)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-20 23:02 UTC)