I mean the basic logic of the service was designed somewhere before its release. Data policies, promises to users are nothing if you assume services should adapt to stuff like this, at the expense of breaking those policies and promises.
Here is an old article from telegram about reasons for how it works https://telegra.ph/Why-Isnt-Telegram-End-to-End-Encrypted-by-Default-08-14
No, just personal experience (I use telegram for many years) and absence of server data implications anywhere across the issues in the past (at this time too). You can find questionable or illegal businesses in telegram with a few words, they are all public channels. Hence “no moderation” accuses mentioned in every article.
There are of course darknet-like private communities, but I assume they are not a subject of interest at this time. Authorities would need to dig very deep past all the obvious illegal stuff, and telegram shouldn’t care about resources consumed by such a small chunk of user base. Those groups will stay, as they are, private and safe, I assume, for quite some time.
Assuming things should work that way is ignorant. According to you, service owners should design and redesign their services to not store any data in order to avoid arrests. Also that a service owner should invent stuff they might not had a plan for if they have even a theoretical possibility to help identify individual users, in other words go against policies they designed at some point.
That’s a wild way of twisting the logic. Just because the platform doesn’t fall under your e2ee definition doesn’t mean they had to do something that is only possible on purely cloud services.
The reason for arrest doesn’t even have anything to do with encryption. All content that facilitates mentioned crimes is public. Handling it shouldn’t involve any backdoors or otherwise service-side decryption.
Wording is confusing. Here are some better takes that sound valid and are true:
Telegram’s e2ee is only available for chats of 2 people, and only on official mobile client.
Telegram’s e2ee is a feature you have to enable whenever you need it (called secret chats).
Companies mentioned in an article you linked aren’t getting the cash flow enough to warrant any improvement in related economies. I see Russian politicians profiting off various things during war but they were doing the same before.
So, short effects of the war on economies are not worth the long term effects of deaths of many consumers anywhere. Using the “war helps economy” argument while forgetting how the deaths and active aggression affect the world and lives, is a manipulation, which is also heavily used by those aggressors (Russia).
Telling Israel is doing a genocide without mentioning what hamas were doing to Israel is also a manipulation.
Worldwide governments seem to have an interest in this war because they are doing everything to fuel it.
Bingo. This nullifies your credibility. Either you’re a troll or an idiot.
On April 16, 2018, the Russian government began blocking access to Telegram, an instant messaging service. The blocking led to interruptions in the operation of many third-party services, but practically did not affect the availability of Telegram in Russia. It was officially unblocked on June 19, 2020
Some say it was unblocked because they made a deal with Durov. Another opinion is that too many people and services including officials continued to rely on it even during the time it was blocked. Regardless, Telegram did a huge job on circumventing those blocks.
The main one I’d say is the 30% cut.
My account is in a similar state, but that’s where I strongly disagree. The whole 30% debacle is worthless. Basically it’s the only one thing that Tim found that would seem a valid complain in customers eyes. It’s not. There is no evidence that lower cut would allow anyone to create and support a platform like (or better than) Steam. Customers will not win anything if the cut would be lower.
I think people should pay more attention to actual prices of digital goods. The perceived amount of injustice is way higher in “I must pay $X to try and enjoy this game” lately than in “developer must give some amount of profit to platform creators”.
Judging by the size, just another electron app.
Both of those mean you have to own a physical thing. Store services are basically backups for cases when you stop owning a physical thing for a while.
Denuvo also prevents easy modding in many cases, causes issues on top of increasing system requirements. Valorant cheats possibility destroys the purpose of the system. But at least valorant anticheat is not being sold as a service to other devs I think.
I haven’t played cod for at least 10 years I think.
Software/game DRM/anticheat (as a service/product) that involves code obfuscation and/or kernel driver.
Even if you buy them on gog you don’t own them. Download and keep - sure, but you could do that with many games on steam too (also you could download torrent versions which wouldn’t be different from buying on gog). The point is about actually keeping these copies alive, properly updated and working, for which these services exist.
So, I think owning a disc is also risky, that means your copy can degrade. Owning games in this context have lost its meaning for me.
Not supporting the open nature of hardware and software.
Basically it’s too much of a hassle to make their software run on other hardware or use other software on their hardware.
I mean if they would produce a better UI by using their expertise, how would not becoming an expert in the new thing be better?
I failed to understand the meaning of this sentence. It doesn’t make sense to me. Producing a better ui is not even on the table when we are talking ui frameworks and native programming - you use what’s available, and if you are a graphics designer then maybe you should’ve sticked to that instead. Becoming expert in native ui is super cool but I wouldn’t expect such miracles from everyone. Just producing a valid low level code is enough to meet my standards of performance. That’s because those standards were heavily affected by web frameworks existence.
The reality is that the people paying the engineer are going to want the better UX
And I hoped it would be customers who would pay for a software or a service who would send valid feedback.
AI can assist you if you more-or-less know what you’re doing
Assuming web devs creating apps don’t know what they’re doing?
but a novice replacing proper learning with ChatGPT pairing is going to write some shitty code.
Chances are that code would be much more optimized than anything electron/CEF wrapped.
to actually be up to our code quality standards
Quality standards are great. But seeing companies shipping fixes to simple CSS issues that were breaking some of main app functions made me realize most of them don’t care about quality standards. If that’s how it is and if there will still be a lot of broken stuff across app updates - might as well just go all the way to proper low level languages.
but no one is going to become an expert in something overnight
It’s not like they need to become experts. But also that’s actually possible (at least the effects of that), especially with all the AI around.
It actually seems more like a windows 10 compatibility dilemma for developers. You can support older systems but it would require some effort. The problem is not the absence of some specific certificates, but the absence of newer ciphers altogether.
This does give security but also removes backwards compatibility with some clients that might be important for some websites.