In that regard I think the title is misleading: Durov plans to make money through the app eventually, just not through selling people's information or push advertising.
To be succinct, one day he will sell out and the buyers will have every incentive to make money out of their users.
Telegram hasn't done a very good job of eliminating the possibility of profit. The secret chat feature is actually a marginal use case. By default messages are readable by the back end. In fact, group chats are also reasable by the back end always, and any conversation which can be accessed from multiple devices. And last I heard, the official windows desktop app does not have secret chats.
All of these messages are the normal use case on telegram. And the text is being indexed by the back end for easy searching capabilities. So essentially telegram has built a search engine for the conversations of tens of millions of people who are slightly more paranoid and want a secure messenger. Not only that, many of the tens of millions have shared their entire address book with names and phone numbers because the official clients required them to.
If they're trying to avoid having valuable information that someone would pay money for, they're not doing a very good job.
Use Signal/Textsecure, folks.
However, it does not use the end to end encryption "by default".
There have been countless attempts to 'own email', and before that, 'own Gopher' and 'own Archie' and so on. There was, once, Hotmail. Then came GMail, and then .. Facebook.
It's quite possible to maintain your own social network with email alone. You can achieve the same results with a mailing list as you can with the Facebook timeline.
The only difference is that you must educate the people in your network to understand how the technology works, and how to operate it in order to function in as effective a manner as is required to maintain a high standard of communication. The fact that this is nearly impossible in the modern context - that you cannot get a group of 200+ people to operate email in the same, standardized manner, is what Facebook - and other mass-communication media - depend upon in order to gain their market share.
I would abandon Facebook in 5 minutes if I could be guaranteed that the people I care about - the links in my social network - were as competent at handling the solution as would be required in order to maintain the quality of communication that Facebook currently delivers. Alas, this is not possible - and those who are attempting to monetize and profit from this mass stupidity will do little to address the issue - for after all, it matters that people don't know how to write a proper email. This is the only reason Facebook has survived as long as it has.
If you want to truly revolutionize communications in this day and age, do something that allows people to use the existing, free, technologies of communication to increase the quality of communication among the masses. Alas, this is a very difficult problem - and like all social ills, the solution is education. The absolute hardest problem there is to solve, out there, today: teaching someone how to use an existing technology to effectively communicate.
What I really want is an open version of Skype where the private key can always be generated by the user's mind, overcomes all the limitations like NAT that make users second class netizens, has no central tracker, and (optionally, but possibly required to work around the limitations) allows a certain amount of traffic to be forwarded like Tor.
I don't see how we can have a conversation about who pays for messaging when the underlying infrastructure for truly secure online communication hasn't yet gone mainstream. I don't really trust Freenet or Tor and can't quite figure out how come, so maybe we could start there and figure out why that is.
And a billion dollars for anything messaging-related completely blows my mind. Most of the world-changing software was developed for a few thousand dollars by a couple of people working in their spare time. To me, paying that much completely misses the point and probably hinders progress by locking capital up in niches that exclude developers who are working towards creating a non-scarcity based economy.
For identity, I use an RSA key pair. For key exchange, devices send their public key to direct neighbors, and you can visually check that the key is correct.
I have also thought about implementing transport over internet (right now it's only Bluetooth). But that would require a lot of effort.
Bitcoin is on their radar for identity proof, as one of many ways to verify https://matrix.org/docs/spec/#n-factor-authentication and could use your help
(But probably not in a way where anybody is glad about it)
Maybe a way to do this in the future with an insecure channel is to give the peer your contact token using only context that both of you know. So the above token could get converted to a human-readable string like "that place we met that first time and what you said to me with 12345abcdef on the end" and the other party would have to know you to figure out how to find you.
Proving who you are beyond that point would probably involve some back and forth questioning like in spy movies or a video call (which could be faked in 5-10 years with computer rendering) so shared history will be key.
It already sounds like it can run over Tor, but it would be nice if it had a standard socket wrapper that could be run over UDP NAT tunneling to look like an SSH VPN. Maybe WebRTC could be integrated with it somehow. I just mean that I'd like the negotiation phase to be separate so that if it works, you're just presented with a secure socket.
Paid messaging apps, however (at least until they get acquired by advertising companies like Facebook), give companies incentives to service their customers first, and the users are actually the customers. That's why Slack and WhatsApp and HipChat and Basecamp have taken off--because they offer the security and paid customer/company relationship.
This article's title is woefully non-conclusive. Sure it would be wonderful if ALL messaging apps could by built and funded by Russian billionaires such they were private and free for the end user, but the fact is that to support the infrastructure of a billion+ user messaging app, you need to make money. And if you can't make money from the users to whom you are promising security and privacy (and thus to whom you owe allegiance), you have to make money elsewhere. And the alternative is arguably what has caused so many security and privacy problems in the first place.
What part of "Shouldn't make money" didn't you understand? You do realize that if you're selling user data that makes money?
The free software movement has done no such thing. The apps and programs you're talking about where the users are the product are free as in beer, not free as in freedom, and the latter is what the free software movement is about.
> This article's title is woefully non-conclusive.
Maybe try reading more than the title?
<quote>Will he continue to bankroll the business -- or does he see revenue opportunities? "We will become financially sustainable at some point," he says. "It will most likely involve third-party paid apps built on the Telegram platform."</quote>
That's a business model common for SAAS applications, I don't really think it's related to free software. Gcc on linux doesn't send usage statistics to someone, I hope.
By your offer, not only that you are forcing me to connect with everyone, you take an essential part of my privacy. Your suggestion is anti-freedom by its core.
Tested Tox last year but it was super buggy. TextSecure looked good but doesn't seem to have as many users. I think Telegram will keep growing.
I just watched Durov's talk with Jimmy Wales from a couple of years back and he comes across like he genuinely cares about ideas that benefit all internet users more so than money. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEHd4HbOLYM
Still, doesn't seem like a sustainable path to have the messaging infrastructure be a responsibility of one company, both for security and financial reasons. Surely some kind of tox style p2p infrastructure would be better?
His new project is even more successful.
This is dreadful. The Free software movement has existed for decades and Telegram brings nothing new to the table that Google hadn't already a decade ago (open yet crippled protocol, proprietary servers). There is nothing new here, besides the fact that Telegram basically makes no money. Which is also nothing new, since Google Talk and Voice never made money either!
I don't mind it, because we know the protocol and can reengineer the clients easily in the event they betray their users trust. It is much better than WhatsApp or Skype being a whole-pipe black box. But at the end of the day, XMPP has existed, has improved, and today provides all the features of all these other messaging transports and more, the problem is there is no money to be had in providing an easy signup XMPP service, so nobody advertises them. Which makes Telegram perplexing, because their only valuable resource is their userbase, and they are not directly monetizing it at all. Contrast that with Duckduckgo having an XMPP server @dukgo.com that basically got a blog post and hasn't been talked about much since, that I use all the time on all my devices.
But fundamentally none of this absolves how stupid all these companies re-implement a wheel poorly (XMPP) because the old wheel is so well known and understood that you can't lock people in or profit off the users using it.
The Carbons XEP is now fairly widely supported and does exactly this.
>user-friendly mobile clients.
Conversations is excellent and is free software.
The centralized system of push notifactions on Android and iOS is not yet supported, it's true, but XMPP with its extensions has pretty good support for battery-constrained devices with intermittent network connections.
I use XMPP across multiple devices with my own server to communicate to other people running their own server and it works great.
Setting up your own server is extremely easy ("apt-get install prosody" works out of the box on Debian; stay away from ejabberd which is a pain) and I highly recommend it.
> The Carbons XEP is now fairly widely supported and does exactly this
I'll add MAM (http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0313.html) for messages you didn't receive because one of your resources was offline, which Conversations does, along with at least Gajim.
> The centralized system of push notifactions on Android and iOS is not yet supported
It's coming (http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0357.html)
This is the question of a zen master. In four words you've said more than the entire hagiography of TFA. Yes of course, someone has to pay for electricity, but when using an open protocol the user chooses who pays and what they're paying for. If Facebook could go back in time and kill email, they would in a heartbeat. The communications of free people should not be supervised, whether by dictators or by capitalists.
I may host my own email server or I might pay someone to host it. Or the government could host it, or my university could host it. Or I could get it for free by agreeing to be served some ads.
But who pays for it doesn't matter. I can send you an email even if we use very different providers (from the point of view of both technology and payment). For messaging I don't see this yet.
I feel like XMPP was supposed to be the chosen one. I had a google account but chatted to my gmail contacts through my self-hosted jabber server. I wonder if this new generation of messaging apps will get to that point anytime soon.
If so, that's what we need. Email was once a bunch of proprietary systems - MCIMail, CompuServ, AOL, etc. It was inconvenient that they didn't interoperate. All those proprietary systems were wiped out by an open one.
I completely agree. In this ideal situation, who pays for it? The article seems to have left this small detail out. How do you plan on getting this service to work without someone footing the bill?
Will he continue to bankroll the business -- or does he see revenue opportunities? "We will become financially sustainable at some point," he says. "It will most likely involve third-party paid apps built on the Telegram platform."
while the marginal cost of e-mail is so low that we get tonnes of spam.
Who needs to pay anything more? We already pay for the infrastructure.
1. What exactly are people paying for?
2. Is that actually necessary for messaging?
If the answer to 1 is servers, the answer to 2 is no: distributed or federated messaging is entirely reasonable and possible to do. If the answer to 1 is paid developers, the answer to 2 is no: there are plenty of developers willing to work on open source. Try it.