Crews that do not share a language
Mixed-language teams are the norm on most frontlines. Translated voice and text would make a channel usable by all of it.
The problem is real and common
A yard with three shift languages currently solves this with whoever happens to be bilingual. That works until the day it matters most.
- Read incoming traffic in your own language
- Speak in yours and have it arrive in theirs
- The original recording is always kept, so nothing is lost in the writing-down
Why this is harder for us
Translation needs text, and getting text from voice is transcription. In the E2EE-preserving mode we do both on the sending device so the server never sees content. Optional server transcription applies only to organisation channels already marked non-encrypted; it never receives E2EE channels or direct messages.
- On-device translation keeps the guarantee but limits language coverage to what the device supports
- We could cover far more languages by translating on our servers — but then we would have to be able to read your messages. If we ever offer it you will be asked first; it will never just happen
- We would rather ship the honest version late than the convenient version quietly
What we will not do
Quietly route your traffic through a translation service and keep the padlock in the interface.
- Any translation mode that requires server access will be off by default and consent-gated
- Affected conversations will be labelled in-app for every participant, not just the person who enabled it
- Accuracy limits will be stated on the feature, because a mistranslated safety instruction is a real hazard
Which languages matter to you?
Coverage priorities come from real deployments. Tell us the pairs your crews actually need.