Yeah and the iMessage lock-in seems limited to the US. Most of the world is on WhatsApp or Facebook Messenger instead (or local apps like LINE, WeChat, KakaoTalk)
Most here seems to just think that iMessage is just SMS. They don’t think in terms of protocol, iMessage is on the phone, it sends text messages... it’s SMS.
I think it help that SMS had been basically free even before iMessage arrived, so people never care to look into alternatives to save money.
Don't get why you're being downvoted... telegram was the first thing that came to mind as an alternative/better solution. Cross platform, dead-simple to setup and it just works.
Telegram lacked video calls. However it was recently added and now I feel comfortable recommending it. Most friends who tried sticked to it.
Some highlights are their lightweight, open-source, blazing-fast client (https://github.com/telegramdesktop/tdesktop) and compatibility with all major platforms like Android, iOS, Windows, macOS and Linux.
I'd recommend Signal but it's not as user friendly.
I suspect the downvotes are because everyone knows there are alternatives to iMessage out there. It isn’t relevant to this particular topic.
“All you have to do is convert everyone you’ve ever known to use a different app” is... not the proposition some people think it is. Kudos to anyone that’s pulled it off, but I won’t.
For me there's a few reasons, but the chief among them is its positioning of its desktop client as an afterthought. Telegram's clients are first class citizens on every platform they run on, which is rare and hard to let go of once you've experienced it.
Its security is more questionable than Signal's for sure, but it comes so much closer to a cross-platform iMessage than Signal does that for 99% of day to day communications it's hard to care.
It is. I currently can't use WhatsApp because my phone is broken, meanwhile I can happily chat away via Telegram. Same thing when my phone is off. Back when they didn't have WhatsApp Web you couldn't even use it on another device at all, but as slick as the UI it's still not really a proper solution.
Meanwhile Telegram has real FOSS clients for any platform you can imagine (there's a CLI version).
It definitely isn't as user friendly on the desktop. It is basically a chrome sandboxed app, which is far from a native app like Telegram. Additionally, you have to sync your devices. Once they become out of sync, you can no longer decrypt the messages on desktop. If you break/lose your mobile device then the messages are gone forever.
Signal is great for enforcing end-to-end encryption, but doesn't yet have the mechanisms in place to sync across devices automatically to make it user-friendly. Telegram is great for most messaging, and if you want end-to-end, it has that too but is mostly limited to mobile devices.
Would be great for someone to implement GPG on top of their cloud-based messaging though.
> It definitely isn't as user friendly on the desktop. It is basically a chrome sandboxed app, which is far from a native app like Telegram.
What is the problem with that exactly?
I have both. Both look like messengers and do messenging.
> If you break/lose your mobile device then the messages are gone forever.
Where? On Whatsapp? Because on Signal you don't need the device. It can be powered off.
> Signal is great for enforcing end-to-end encryption, but doesn't yet have the mechanisms in place to sync across devices automatically to make it user-friendly.
What are you talking about? I have the same messages on my phone and on my desktop client. I don't need to do anything. Just launch either.
> Telegram is great for most messaging
What is exactly "great" about it compared to the others? You can send the same stuff as you do with Signal.
> , and if you want end-to-end, it has that too but is mostly limited to mobile devices.
> What is the problem with that exactly? I have both. Both look like messengers and do messenging.
Telegram is way snappier and is more peformant all around. Same reason why people complain about Electron all the time.
> Where? On Whatsapp? Because on Signal you don't need the device. It can be powered off.
No, compared to Telegram. Messages you send via Signal on mobile are not available on desktop, and when you sign-in on desktop you need to first link with mobile. When they become out of sync the messages you had previously are no longer available.
> What are you talking about? I have the same messages on my phone and on my desktop client. I don't need to do anything. Just launch either.
Again, as long as your device is linked but if you lose/break your phone then the E2E messages are not longer available on desktop after a period of time.
> What is exactly "great" about it compared to the others? You can send the same stuff as you do with Signal.
Telegram has a lot of great features that are not available on Signal. I suggest you try it out if you haven't already, and if you have then maybe you don't care about those features but it is much more widely used than Signal for that reason.
> , and if you want end-to-end, it has that too but is mostly limited to mobile devices.
That doesn't make it worse per say. The process of linking on desktop for Signal is cumbersome. I don't think Telegram is perfect, which is why I think GPG would be a great solution for encrypted cloud messaging.
> Telegram is way snappier and is more peformant all around. Same reason why people complain about Electron all the time.
I can't replicate that. Telegram uses 20MB more RAM on my W10 computer and takes longer to launch. I see people complain about Electron because it's Electron and it's cool to complain about it.
> No, compared to Telegram. Messages you send via Signal on mobile are not available on desktop, and when you sign-in on desktop you need to first link with mobile. When they become out of sync the messages you had previously are no longer available.
Where do you get all this??
Yes, you have to link the desktop client with Signal. Once. Afterwards never again. Messages you send via Signal ARE AVAILABLE ON DESKTOP. Did you even try it? You can even send messages to yourself. They don't become out of sync. There is everything wrong about this.
> Again, as long as your device is linked but if you lose/break your phone then the E2E messages are not longer available on desktop after a period of time.
If you lose your phone number you lose your Telegram account. Your Telegram account is your phone number.
On Signal, you can use your desktop client as long as nobody else registers with your phone number too because as I've said several times over: the phone is not required.
> Telegram has a lot of great features that are not available on Signal.
I have it.
Why are you unable to name one?
> I suggest you try it out if you haven't already, and if you have then maybe you don't care about those features but it is much more widely used than Signal for that reason.
It's widely used because people use it for porn, piracy and conspiracy bullshit already. All this doesn't make it a better messenger altogether or Signal worse. It's just something a certain group of people like and spread within those groups of people. Just because Signal isn't popular in the porn, piracy or conspiracy scenes, doesn't make it worse.
> The process of linking on desktop for Signal is cumbersome.
Why are you constantly lying?
You scan a QR code. That's all. There is nothing cumbersome about it.
> That doesn't make it worse per say
Of course it's worse. It can't do a thing. So it's worse.
Most likely both, since different social groups in different countries have settled on different messengers. E.g. In Europe/Israel it's Whatsapp, but in eastern Europe and ex-USSR it's Viber (for older people) and Telegram (younger people), almost nobody uses Whatsapp.
Speaking about preferences (and excluding privacy question because I have no expertise there) I would pick Telegram because while on mobile it is essentially the same as Whatsapp, desktop client for Telegram is miles better. Whatsapp client was crashing constantly and regularly, every few days. It's just junk.
There are other issues, like that they don't allow you to install apps outside their Appstore and they require developers pay $99 a year to publish an app. Android allows you to install apps outside of the Google Play Store.
What does iMessage being an Apple only product have to do with not allowing third party stores on iOS? How does that help getting iMessage on Android? Are you suggesting that Apple should be forced to port iMessage to Android devices?
