Ask HN: Is Telegram better than WhatsApp? - relaxy
======
dbrgn
It depends on what you value.

\- If you value features, then Telegram is surely ahead of Whatsapp in almost
every aspect.

\- If you value the encryption, I would trust Whatsapp more than Telegram.
Telegram did some strange stuff with their custom cryptography invented by
"rockstar mathematicians".

\- If you value not giving metadata to the US / to Facebook, then don't go
with Whatsapp.

\- On the other hand, if you value having less metadata stored, then Whatsapp
is probably ahead of Telegram.

If you value privacy, then both aren't good. They both put usability and
features before privacy. Telegram was once branded as "the private messenger",
but later rebranded as "the fast messenger". Now it says "a new era of
messaging" on their website.

Telegram causes tons of metadata. All conversations and contacts are stored on
their servers, which is closed source. Their multidevice system is built in a
way that you will get access to all historic conversations if you manage to
add a new device to the account (e.g. through SS7). Many of their latest
feature (like games, payment, etc) cause a lot of additional metadata, some of
which can be retrieved by third parties (e.g. by the game developers).

I'm biased (full disclaimer: I work for Threema), but if you value privacy,
then go for a messenger like Threema, where the first priority is always
privacy (e.g. no phone number required, no metadata or log storage,
decentralized groups, and end-to-end encrypted decentralized profile pictures,
the latter being something that no other mobile messenger does as far as I
know). It has a clear business model and the protocol can be verified (even
though the app is not open source).

Besides that biased suggestion, you might also be well off with something like
Signal, although they're based in the US (secret court gag orders possible)
and require you to give them your phone number (metadata).

 _(Edit: Formatting)_

~~~
canes123456
Why does Threema not use the Signal Protocol? Lack of an open source protocol
makes it a non start for most uses of this. The protocol can not really be
"verified" in any real sense. You can check that you can decrypt the message
with nacl. All this doesn't show anything about a lack of bugs or backdoors.

Google and Facebook both decided to use the Signal protocol. Why should we
trust a small company to do this correctly the first time? Without even being
able to check what they are doing?

~~~
dbrgn
Threema predates the Signal protocol.

There is an open source re-implementation of the Threema protocol obtained by
reverse engineering:
[https://github.com/blizzard4591/openMittsu](https://github.com/blizzard4591/openMittsu)
There is also an (incomplete) implementation in Go:
[https://github.com/o3ma/o3/](https://github.com/o3ma/o3/) Note that Threema
does not disallow reverse engineering in their terms of service.

The fact that OpenMittsu can properly encrypt and decrypt messages that are
compatible with the Threema apps should be proof that the implementation is
correct. Also, since Threema is financed by selling the app with no external
investors, there should be more incentive to stick to their promises than to
cheat on their privacy-sensitive users.

And even if the apps and the server were open source, unfortunately it would
still not be possible to verify that the version on Google Play / iTunes is
the same as the published source code. I'm not aware of a way to create
reproducible builds on these app stores either.

------
Yetanfou
Telegram is not connected to Facebook while Whatsapp is. This makes Whatsapp a
no-go for many people, me being one of them. While Telegram's "Russian roots"
seem to cause others to doubt about its trustworthiness I don't see this as a
problem. From what I gather, Pavel Durov (the man behind Telegram, former
founder of VKontakte) is not on friendly terms with the current Russian regime
so it would take a rather elaborate conspiracy theory to have him collude with
the Kremlin.

Apart from that Telegram is fast, reliable and flexible and it treats Linux as
a first-class citizen - maybe partly due to its Russian roots?

So, Telegram. Before it came around I used my own XMPP-server with diverse
clients but Telegram has the advantage of being much more accessible to those
less computer-savvy. I still have this server and can switch back to it any
time I want but for now I'm happy with Telegram.

~~~
majewsky
> So, Telegram. Before it came around I used my own XMPP-server with diverse
> clients but Telegram has the advantage of being much more accessible to
> those less computer-savvy.

Is this still true now that we have
<[https://conversations.im/>](https://conversations.im/>)? Most people use
messengers only on their phones, anyway.

~~~
Yetanfou
It is. My father _loathes_ mobile devices (or rather the stranglehold they
seem to have on some people) but he has no qualms against using a PC. I
converse with him daily through Telegram. My mother uses Telegram as well, on
both her mobile as well as a tablet and her PC.

~~~
deno
There’s plenty of nice XMPP clients for desktop, though. I do agree, however,
that there is a void to be filled by an XMPP client with good discovery.

The latency and battery problems everyone was blaming are solved now. The
missing piece is this:

A way to provide XMPP service for any address, in particular gmail addresses,
without both touching any DNS config and without any support from whoever
controls the domain (RIP Google Talk).

Basically from UX perspective:

1) User downloads an app (mobile or desktop).

2) User confirms email address via either email confirmation (it’s good enough
for SSL, so…) or OAuth flow

3) That’s it.

4) Bonus: For OAuth flow user has prepopulated address book.

Behind the scenes at step 2 a unique ID is associated with the email address.
Then other clients resolve this via something, DHT, blockchain, whatever.

This introduces some trusted oracle that assists in discovery, but keeps
everything else decentralized.

Build this and it can certainly compete with Telegrams of this world.

Unfortunately, I don’t think Keybase can be compatible by itself with email or
phone № proofs. Perhaps if they explicitly add support for oracles, that would
be cool.

------
gloomybrain
I use both of them.

To my mind Telegram is a nice example of how to do things right. It's fast (in
all senses), it's reliable and generally pleasant to use. It can be secure if
you want it to :)

Not that WhatsApp is slow or not reliable. I can't formulate it but still I do
like Telegram more. All the above is just my overall impression.

\-------------

Speaking of security I'd like to admit that I'm not a terrorist or a serial
killer so maybe I'm a bit out of this problem. I agree that it's generally bad
to spy on regular citizens but at the same time it's obviously even worse to
have negotiations regarding terroristic acts or other ways to commit a crime.

Personally I'm almost O.K. with government spying on me unless it tries to
sell me goods and services =)

~~~
wruza
Or tries to put words you don't even remember into context, or new
administration chases you for your older ideas and puts you on a list. Good
for you living in centuries-stable country.

------
dade_
Yes, for the first time: a great desktop client for Linux and I have friends
that actually use it. extremely stable software and it behaves well.

------
ruiramos
The thing that makes me use Telegram more than Whatapp are the desktop
clients[1] and the flawless desktop-mobile integration. Works better than any
other chat platform out there, IMHO.

1\. [https://desktop.telegram.org/](https://desktop.telegram.org/)

~~~
FabHK
I'm quite happy with the Wire desktop client (stand-alone, unlike WhatsApp).
Also usable without phone number.

------
coppolaemilio
If you want your data to end up managed by the US you can use WhatsApp, if you
want it to end up in Russia you can use Telegram. They are very similar in
features, but I'm not a fan of Telegram storing all the conversation in their
server.

~~~
mentat2737
Small correction.

With Telegram your data ends up in Germany.

They are Berlin based and against the current Russian government AFAIK.

~~~
wruza
They are ignorant to the point that I simply can't understand. Durov is in
'fuck you and die sooner' relation with russian goverment, but people still
claim that Telegram is under their control. Right now we are at risk of losing
Telegram if he will not provide server location info to FSB in few weeks, and
it seems Durov is ready to lose russian market completely to protect it from
these guys.

I actually trust whatsapp way less, simply because it has NO problems with
russian special forces, which became very high-tech last years. This alone is
a big red flag today.

~~~
Grangar
>Right now we are at risk of losing Telegram if he will not provide server
location info to FSB in few weeks, and it seems Durov is ready to lose russian
market completely to protect it from these guys

Do you have a source for this?

~~~
wruza
[https://m.vk.com/wall1_677448](https://m.vk.com/wall1_677448)

As for goverment intentions, I have no direct link, but those who simply
ignored their demands were blocked. We wait and see what happens.

------
mooreed
Really depends on your objective measure of "better".

Faster load time? Better uptime? Less data leakage to Facebook? Etc.

This practice of defining "better" is a great habbit to cultivate not only in
your conversation but in your thinking too.

~~~
jbigelow76
If all your friends/family/contacts are on Telegram, then Telegram is better.
If all your friends/family/contacts are on WhatsApp then WhatsApp is better.

SMS is the only other message platform where a few of my social circle bleeds
out of my preferred messaging platform (iMessage).

The best IMHO is where the people you want to talk to are.

------
Daviey
Telegram and Whatsapp are pretty interchangeable on feature set TBH. The
support for bots in Telegram is nice, but Whatsapp currently has more user
share - which is crucial.

Another interchangeable from user experience is Signal. I'm seeing more growth
in Signal, which is great - and I trust it more than Telegram and Whatsapp
combined.

~~~
bilkow
I kind of lost my trust for Signal when moxie said it was not OK[1] that a
fully free and open source fork of their client (built to remove the Google
Play Services depency back then) was using their servers.

I've read the discussion and I find moxie's arguments pretty weak in this
matter.

[1]
[https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issueco...](https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issuecomment-217211165)

EDIT: spacing

~~~
chrisper
How is it weak to say that he doesn't want this because he doesn't want to
have to worry about supporting third party apps on his servers?

~~~
bilkow
As the github user mimi89999 pointed, moxie wouldn't have to support
LibreSignal directly, it behaves like a normal Signal client and there would
probably be no impact in his servers at all because there was a very limited
number of LibreSignal users.

~~~
Daviey
Ah! But what if the non-official client causes a DoS of the server....

... then write server software that isn't vulnerable.

I have to agree... mandating what client software is used is a bit
disappointing from moxie... I thought the world learned this lesson from
Pidgin etc.

Next he'll say he only wants to support Chrome for their website.

------
uberjoe
Yes, constantly adding new innovative features which WhatsApp will then copy.
Today is video messages, which look great.

Have the option of secret chats, which I believe is proper E2EE. But to be
honest, this isn't my biggest worry anyway.

Can join plenty of communities for lots of discussion.

Great searching features for old conversations.

Desktop client is great and available for Linux. Also supports voice calling
now from desktop.

But most importantly, you can have more than one device per phone number!
Crazy, right?!

------
mahoro
If you have an iPad you have no choice: you can't use WhatsApp on it. Even web
vesion is not available (you'll be redirected to AppStore).

BTW that's not the main reason why I use Telegram for several years as my
primary messenger.

~~~
Heliosmaster
afaik you still require a phone number also for telegram :(

~~~
mahoro
That's true. But once registered you can use Telegram on any device. That's
not true for WhatsApp: they have app only for iPhone and you can't run it on
iPad even in compatibility mode.

------
Bladtman
Telegram rolls their own non-standard crypto protocol as I understand it. This
is a bit of a no-no when it comes to security. More importantly; chat's arent'
end-to-end encrypted by default (I can't find a way to enable it in the web-
app), which means the telegram-whatsapp comparison makes no sense. Whatsapp is
secure, telegram is not.

~~~
Bladtman
Also; end-to-end encrypted chats in telegram (they call them "secret chats")
won't follow you between devices. A secret chat started on one device, won't
be accessible from another. This makes them far less useful, and dissuades
users from using them. Again; comparing whatsapp to telegram in terms of
security is apples vs oranges.

------
emilsedgh
In what regard?

I use both of them consistently.

Telegram is full of nice features and their desktop client is well done.

Whatsapp doesn't have as many features but I feel far more secure and private
in there.

~~~
hvidgaard
For security and privacy, neighter is a good option. If you compare Telegram
and Riot, Telegram wins hands down from a UX point of view. Riot is seriously
lacking in this department, but it offers true end to end encryption with
multiple devices by default, so if that matters to you, that is the best
choice.

~~~
kogepathic
_> Riot is seriously lacking in this department, but it offers true end to end
encryption with multiple devices by default, so if that matters to you, that
is the best choice._

What about Wire?

~~~
yoghurt
Wire is still improving quickly and it looks very promising, but this
([https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/secure-
messaging-...](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/secure-messaging-
app-wire-stores-everyone-youve-ever-contacted-in-plain-text)) is reason enough
for me to avoid them for now. Signal is still the best secure messenger in my
opinion.

~~~
hvidgaard
Indeed. There is no reason to store that what so ever. Idealy, messaging is
fully distributed, secure, and anonymous.

------
carlob
Telegram works without a smartphone, whatsapp doesn't.

~~~
ced83fra
Anyone has used the new opera browser, from which one can use whatsapp ?

------
smnscu
I've been using Telegram daily for 1-2 years now, I like them both but (1) I
think Telegram's UX is superior, and (2) I get why WhatsApp's desktop app
works the way it does [i.e. tunnel stuff through your phone], but I don't like
using it.

------
kelnage
Define "better". If all your friends use one, then that is probably better for
you. There is also functionality differences between the two (mentioned by
others), which might force your hand.

That said, there are other quantifiable measures. In terms of security,
Telegram has two main drawbacks:

1) it supports insecure chats - which means that for many (especially non-
technical) users, they won't use the end-to-end encrypted messaging at all

2) whilst the encryption algorithms they use are standardised, the protocol
they uses to transfer the messages is not well understood by the cryptographic
community - and when it has been analysed, well-known flaws have been found
[1].

In comparison, WhatsApp also makes use of standardised encryption algorithms,
but also uses the Signal protocol - which has been studied by multiple groups,
with better outcomes (such as [2]). One drawback to WhatsApp is they will
generally make security decisions that are primarily based around avoiding
sacrificing usability - if that is a problem, then perhaps Signal[3] or
Wire[4] is a better choice.

On the encryption debate, using Russian algorithms vs US (Belgian) algorithms
is somewhat academic - I believe that both are considered by the wider
academic community to be strong when correctly used. I don't believe there is
any evidence that Telegram or WhatsApp are incorrectly using them (beyond the
attack found against Telegram, which may have been fixed by now?). This is the
mostly the same for considerations about data storage location - if end-to-end
encryption is enabled in Telegram, they are roughly equivalent.

[1]
[https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1177.pdf](https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1177.pdf)

[2]
[https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/1013.pdf](https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/1013.pdf)

[3] [https://whispersystems.org/](https://whispersystems.org/)

[4] [https://app.wire.com/](https://app.wire.com/)

------
garou
they have an entire API be explored:
[https://core.telegram.org/](https://core.telegram.org/)

meanwhile whatsapp have this:
[https://www.whatsapp.com/faq/en/android/28000012](https://www.whatsapp.com/faq/en/android/28000012)

------
Niten
Certainly not if one of your main concerns is the privacy of your message
content. WhatsApp uses the Signal protocol; Telegram uses its own homebrew
encryption protocol that has not been well vetted.

~~~
steevenwee
AFAIK Telegram is banned in a number of countries for the reason of being
secure and not letting authorities monitor what people are messaging about.

~~~
Niten
That's not evidence that its encryption algorithm is well designed or secure.

~~~
steevenwee
it is circumstantial evidence. Isn't it should be a red flag if one messenger
is prohibited in a country with an authoritarian regime, and the other is not?

I mean that's enough for my social messaging. If I'd need to transfer some top
secret information, I would use neither of them.

~~~
Niten
> Isn't it should be a red flag if one messenger is prohibited in a country
> with an authoritarian regime, and the other is not?

No.

~~~
steevenwee
If you want to use less information than available for your decisions, it's
your choice.

------
jorgemf
Probably... but who cares? My friends are in WhatsApp and I use the app to
talk to my friends. I wish I could use Telegram, but I feel so lonely there.

I am sure there are better apps there that can fulfill better your needs.
There are apps with better encryption and so on. It depends for what you want
it. It is hard so say what is better, it depends on the person and its needs,
but at the end if your need is to talk with your firends and your friends are
in Whastapp. Then whatsapp is the best for you.

~~~
roryisok
This is a good point. I love telegram, but can't completely give up whatsapp
because I have a few friends who just won't use telegram. I really wish they
would move to telegram, but they're stubborn, and they in turn have friends
who are only on whatsapp, and so on and so on.

------
dandelion_lover
Telegram is far from perfect, according to this investigation:

[http://www.cryptofails.com/post/70546720222/telegrams-
crypta...](http://www.cryptofails.com/post/70546720222/telegrams-
cryptanalysis-contest)

Why not use, say, Ricochet? Or any other secure messenger ([https://prism-
break.org/en/all/#instant-messaging](https://prism-break.org/en/all/#instant-
messaging))

~~~
wunderlust
Why isn't Signal on the prism break page?

~~~
dandelion_lover
[https://github.com/nylira/prism-
break/issues/1667](https://github.com/nylira/prism-break/issues/1667)

------
phr4ts
You can use telegram without a phone. If you want to use WhatsApp on the PC,
your mobile phone must be online.

Last year I lost access to my WhatsApp profile simply because I changed
country and reset my phone without transferring the number to a local number
first. Support couldn't help.

This kind of situation wouldn't happen with telegram. Just login with username
/ password online.

------
austinsharp
Telegram has great features. It's fast, available on every platform, and the
clients are open source. I've had good uptake on it among friends and family,
especially with the option of easy web and desktop clients.

As others have said it's not as theoretically secure as WhatsApp or
(especially) Signal. But I think it benefits from being the main product of a
company that is totally focused on messaging, not on advertising (see all of
Facebook and Google's messengers). The experience is great and even as they
add features, they manage to keep things clean and stay out of your way, so
you can ignore all the new features and just use it for simple stuff that it
does really well.

That said, I haven't used WhatsApp much because I don't know many people who
do. It comes down to where the people you want to talk to are, and if you can
influence them to go elsewhere.

------
pzone
I love Telegram. It is a true joy and my circle of friends are enthusiastic
fans.

------
dallamaneni
I am using Telegram from over two years.

Pros:

\- End to end encrypted secret chats

\- Awesome bots and the bot platform

\- Open protocol so we can implement third party clients. So is available on
any new platform (Ubuntu phone, FirefoxOS, Linux, Command line, web,...).

\- Recent improvements like end-to-end encrypted audio calling (Not sure if
Whatsapp calls are encrypted)

\- Many small features that make me happy like we can lock the app with
password, customize interface, etc.

Cons:

\- Not many users (On the contrary I like it as there is not much noise)

\- No video calling

\- There are some reports doubting their encryption

~~~
FabHK
> \- End to end encrypted secret chats

As an option, not by default.

~~~
dallamaneni
Yep, I agree. I personally like it being optional. Not end-to-end encrypted
has an advantage of syncing messages to all other devices and use secret chats
when privacy is more important than syncing.

Another feature I missed is ephemeral messages in secret chats: We can have
messages automatically deleted after certain time (Although I wish the time
settings are more fine grained).

------
fsiefken
Riot on your phone works ok too for encrypted messaging and a lot more
interoperability. [http://www.titus-stahl.de/blog/2016/12/21/encrypted-
messenge...](http://www.titus-stahl.de/blog/2016/12/21/encrypted-messengers-
why-riot-and-not-signal-is-the-future/)

------
cmarinas
Not really. What I missed most in Telegram was "delivered to device" status.
While they claim such information wouldn't tell which of the recipient's
devices received the message, I see it more as laziness on their side. They
could have aimed for "delivered to _any /one_ device" or "delivered to the
_default_ device". I personally care about whether a message was delivered
(and the recipient would eventually look at their phone) or the server is
down, recipient doesn't have a data connection etc. and I can try different
communication methods. A "read" status is nice but the people I usually talk
to tend to reply anyway.

In terms of message storage (ignoring government requests here), Telegram
servers need to store them so that they can be provided to different
clients/devices. For WhatsApp, OTOH, there are primary communication devices
(phones) with end-to-end encryption and secondary clients that connect to the
primary device to access the messages (rather than getting them from
WhatsApp's servers). End-to-end encryption is available on Telegram as well
but AFAIK you lose the ability to use secondary clients.

~~~
Aoyagi
But...they do have a delivered status. I think it's "delivered to the servers"
(probably doesn't work in "secret chats"), but it fulfils the same goal. Edit:
It does work in secret chat as well

And yes, Telegram has an option (a default state actually) to store the
messages on their servers, WhatsApp doesn't have that. Beyond "E2E should be
on by default", I don't see how this point is for WhatsApp.

~~~
cmarinas
"delivered to server" is different from "delivered to device". Let's say my
friend is abroad with no roaming, I have no idea whether a message was
delivered to him/her or not. WhatsApp has both.

As I wrote, I think (I might be wrong though) that if you enable E2E
encryption on Telegram you can no longer use additional/desktop client.

------
nmgsd
This highlights a major issue with ALL messaging apps, namely that the
provider owns the clients AND the backend.

Distributed open-source clients that use end-2-end encryption over third party
messaging channels is the future of secure messaging.

~~~
Arnt
It is? It looks more like the past... "MPP is an example of a federated
protocol that advertises itself as a "living standard." Despite its capacity
for protocol "extensions," however, it's undeniable that XMPP still largely
resembles a synchronous protocol with limited support for rich media, which
can't realistically be deployed on mobile devices. If XMPP is so extensible,
why haven't those extensions quickly brought it up to speed with the modern
world?". See [https://whispersystems.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-
moving/](https://whispersystems.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/) and
disagree, deny or be sad if you want.

Personally, I'm sad.

~~~
Bladtman
In software in general, the past is the future. Things were going great, then
everything went to shit in the 2000'nds.

------
starikovs
As for me, I use Telegram and I am happy with it! It's the best messaging app
I've ever used. But it's only my opinion, you should try it and decide for
yourself.

------
std_throwaway
I don't understand your question. Did you want to ask one of those?

* What is the difference between WhatsApp and Telegram?

* Which of both do you prefer for your personal use?

* For whom are those messengers suited?

------
dbolgheroni
One point: Telegram has no _default_ end-to-end encryption. This, by itself,
is the major selling point for Whatsapp (even if Facebook collects metadata).

~~~
kojoru
Whatsapp then syncs the messages with iCloud as plain text by default, so
¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

------
homakov
Yeah, though it sucks both require a phone & sim card

------
steevenwee
I use a number of telegram bots, which took very little time to write. The bot
api is super easy and straight forward.

I also use it for most of my communications.

------
garou
For me the only thing missing on Telegram is "people". My friends are on
WhatsApp, which is EXTREMELY popular here on Brazil. Sadly.

------
ProMarc
IMHO Yes.

------
rodorgas
Telegram is more fun (bots and stickers), but WhatsApp is more secure (no
messages on server, no rolled-your-own-crypto).

------
redxblood
Telegram is 10 times better than whatsapp.

------
soldebossa
None of them have good call quality. I haven't tried Threema.

~~~
HansWurst1312
I actually use Threema. However there is no call option and I haven't figured
out if they plan to implement one. However the quality of voice messages is
pretty good seen that every message is end2end encrypted...

------
sidcool
WhatsApp is E2E encrypted. So even FB cannot read the messages. The encryption
technology is an open source peer reviewed Signal system. Seems privacy
friendly to me.

Telegram has Russian roots and their encryption system is closed sourced.

Am I missing something?

~~~
anotheryou
WhatsApp is owned by facebook, the telegram team is not very loyal to the
government, Telegram can send huge files. Telegram has end2end encryption
disabled by default and it does not work across multiple devices. (How is
whatsapp here? does it even have a Desktop Client?)

Your points still stand true though.

~~~
chrisper
Yes. WhatsApp has a desktop client (web.whatsapp.com). End 2 end still works
because it goes through your phone. So if your phone is off you can't use the
desktop client.

~~~
la_oveja
Thats like remote play, not a desktop client.

~~~
chrisper
How is it remote play? It is a full web client.

~~~
la_oveja
Turn off your phone and lets see how that "full web client" behaves.

------
krabpaaltje
On every front except user numbers

------
Gman1805
yes. latest updates demonstrate how far they are ahead. i find the bot
platform superb

------
Gman1805
yes, far superior , latest updates demonstrates this again.

------
lisardo
yes

------
ifree
yes

------
ShirsenduK
It should be 'than WhatsApp' and not 'then WhatsApp' :)

------
beedogs
yes. heaps.

------
XJOKOLAT
Yes.

