Content warning: https://gadgeteer.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/WhatsApp-channels-400x225.jpg Seems the broadcast feature will work very similarly to Telegram’s broadcast channels in that an unlimited number of users can subscribe, but communication is broadcast one-w
Seems the broadcast feature will work very similarly to Telegram’s broadcast channels in that an unlimited number of users can subscribe, but communication is broadcast one-way without any replies or comments from subscribers.
This is very useful for especially government, disaster management, news services, etc where millions of users can potentially tune-in, unlike with groups. Broadcast channels are also easier to manage as there is no moderation required.
But the differences come in with WhatsApp wanting to monetise these channels, and also limit them so that individuals are not able to use them. On Telegram’s side, they have always been free, and even individuals could just create one and get going with them.
So WhatsApp continues to try keeping up with Telegram, but they always seem to be two steps or more behind with so many features. Yet we do know that the best features, the best security (I’m speaking broader than Telegram), most interoperable protocols, have never featured in the mass users’ choice of what they use (just think VHS vs Betamax).
If corporates want to ever escape the ongoing squeeze of money out of them, they need to think open networks, interoperability, etc.
Seems the broadcast feature will work very similarly to Telegram's broadcast channels in that an unlimited number of users can subscribe, but communication is
Telegram server is proprietary and that's not good but the client is free as in freedom, open to third party clients. It is an agreeable compromise for many people that coupled with an audited encryption protocol ensure a reasonable level of privacy from unwanted ears and eyes
@Paolo Redaelli yes there are certainly better open standards based messengers, but for bette ror worse, most mass users sit on WhatsApp and Telegram. As I pointe dout in my main post, the "better" or more "interoperable" standards are not those chosen by the mainstream.
It probably has to do with PR, and you'll also see most media publishers also syaing the others are "too complicated". Yet I have to laugh because networks like say Nostr don't even require an e-mail or a user ID or evena password, as the public private keypair gets generated for you. It is trechnically easier, but the media are also very much sold on wherever they are already, and are really not open to exploring elsewhere.
easy discoverability is a winning point these days. And people, expectially not technologically savvy. Once upon a time, when mobiles weren't widespread people kept giving out address cards.
Paolo Redaelli
in reply to Danie • • •Danie
in reply to Paolo Redaelli • • •It probably has to do with PR, and you'll also see most media publishers also syaing the others are "too complicated". Yet I have to laugh because networks like say Nostr don't even require an e-mail or a user ID or evena password, as the public private keypair gets generated for you. It is trechnically easier, but the media are also very much sold on wherever they are already, and are really not open to exploring elsewhere.
Paolo Redaelli
in reply to Danie • • •