Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Removing SMS support from Signal Android (soon)

signal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 649 posts

Re: Removing SMS support from Signal Android (soon)

#341

Post by rlpb »

lucideer wrote: post #153

This is bizarre. If this were an in-depth announcement with a long and well-structured technical justification attached, I could understand. Though I suspect I'd likely disagree with the decision, I could probably accept it as a simple different of opinion if the arguments were evidently well-thought-through and considered. This blog-post is so lightweight. There's no technical analysis. There's barely any justificat…

> Definitely the end of my Signal usage anyway. It's my main SMS app: my primary motivator is SMS UX, the ability to securely message a tiny subset of my friends is a very nice but ultimately non-vital bonus.

I think this is the crux of it. Your primary motivator may be for a better SMS UX. But Signal's primary motivator is to provide universal secure messaging, but your typical use of Signal doesn't do that. So it's no surprise that their plans mismatch your expectations.

Re: Removing SMS support from Signal Android (soon)

#342

Post by codethief »

Many people have commented on why this is devastating news regarding future adoption of Signal. But there is a second part to the announcement that hasn't received a lot of attention yet:

> If you want to keep them, you’ll also need to export your SMS messages from Signal into that new app.

So that means my text messages will be removed from my Signal chat history? Put differently, considering how many of my contacts over the years switched between using Signal, not using Signal, and using Signal again, this means that parts of my conversations will suddenly be gone and conversations might suddenly be incoherent?

I have trouble expressing just how angry I am about this change.

Re: Removing SMS support from Signal Android (soon)

#344

Post by lucideer »

dodgerdan wrote: post #193
lucideer wrote: post #153

This is bizarre. If this were an in-depth announcement with a long and well-structured technical justification attached, I could understand. Though I suspect I'd likely disagree with the decision, I could probably accept it as a simple different of opinion if the arguments were evidently well-thought-through and considered. This blog-post is so lightweight. There's no technical analysis. There's barely any justificat…

Improving UI/UX around to clarify the SMS function is insecure is almost impossible. Google did research around SSL cert warnings a few years back, their conclusion was that people don’t read and just dismiss warnings, no mater what UI was. A frightening percentage of people also think the security padlock icon is actually a handbag. Most people simply lack the technical basis to understand the security implications…

The only similarity between these two UX scenarios is that they involve encrypted network protocols. From a user standpoint there's no similarities.

Firstly, the messaging decision is presented to the user before an action (send SMS/Signal). It's capable of blocking and takes place as part of an active use flow where the user is trying to complete a task. With browsers, the differentiation in UI is displayed after a user action. It doesn't block and the user doesn't require interaction to achieve any goal. Why on earth should they pay any attention to it?

Secondly, the UX for messaging is an equivalent paths binary decision: you're asking people to choose A or B. There isn't an inherent default so a user doesn't start out with a bias toward one or the other. They can easily be required to read to proceed.

With browsers it's a yes/no binary decision: the default (yes) is insecure (for an insecure website). It requires no action from the user. The secure option (no, leave) asks the user to do something. It's a choice between inaction (insecure) or action (secure). That's heavily stacked.

Lastly, even the context surrounding the apps themselves is incomparably different. One is a security upgrade of an application everyone's been using for decades (often unknowingly; "the icon for the internet"). The other is an app people consciously download and install explicitly for security reasons (regardless of whether they understand those security reasons it's at least the motivating factor).

Re: Removing SMS support from Signal Android (soon)

#345

Post by dopa42365 »

maratc wrote: post #309
jhoechtl wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Austrians don't care too. I can't understand who and why anyone cares about SMS these day, besides receiving government emergency notifications.

Phone-based 2FA hasn't got to Austria yet?

Most sites and platforms use HOTP/TOTP (RFC 4226/RFC 6238) for 2FA, use an authenticator app of your choice.

Regardless of that, you can still always receive SMS for the 3 outdated services that still use it.

Re: Removing SMS support from Signal Android (soon)

#346

Post by javajosh »

daedalus_j wrote: post #284
pmlnr wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not mutually exclusive at all, see KDE, but it takes more time, and people will have the option to mess it all up. Taking that factor away - allowing people to mess it up - makes it easier for developers.

KDE is such a great example of how to do it right that I didn't even think of it. It just works so well and so transparently that I forget how great it is sometimes. Rock solid and both works and looks great right out of the box. So customizable that using literally anything else feels like using a Fisher-Price computer for toddlers.

That review of KDE is so over-the-top it almost reads like satire. Is KDE really that great? (Using Gnome under Ubuntu - no complaints here. But I also am not sure what KDE is giving you. Control over look-and-feel of the windowing environment? Default utility applications? Perhaps a desktop API thick-client programmers can write against?

Re: Removing SMS support from Signal Android (soon)

#347

Post by Kiro »

throwawayben wrote: post #49

The comments here are so bizarre to me. I think this must be a USA thing. I had no idea signal even supported SMS, nor do I know anybody who uses SMS

Where do you live where people do not use SMS? In most countries I've been to and lived in in Europe SMS was very much used.

Re: Removing SMS support from Signal Android (soon)

#348

Post by Kiro »

mderazon wrote: post #244

Outside I think mostly the US, SMS is basically only used for spam and 2fa messages. I can't remember the last time I communicated with someone via SMS to be honest. To hear that people use it in group chats is mind boggling to me.

Where do you live?

Re: Removing SMS support from Signal Android (soon)

#349

Post by autoexec »

CommitSyn wrote: post #156
daedalus_j wrote: post #149

I've been using Signal for a long time. I have repeatedly been unable to convince iOS users to use Signal because "I don't want another app". Android users have been much more willing to give it a shot. As an android user myself, I much prefer having SMS built in because I use the search feature often to look back through all my SMS/Signal chats. I also regularly forward an SMS message to a Signal user, or vice versa…

Yes, this is an idiotic decision that makes me question the decisions being made as a whole by Signal. Does anyone have recommendations for a good default SMS app on Android?

Silence is like a less polished version of Signal. The only important feature I really think it's lacking is a search function. You can export your texts to an XML file though, so to find something from a long time ago I just export to a file and use grep to search through that.

Re: Removing SMS support from Signal Android (soon)

#350

Post by paulv »

I pretty much only use the signal protocol to chat with my husband, who I convinced to install the app because I could help with any problems that arose. I'm not going to use one app to communicate with just him and another to communicate with everyone else, nor is he.

The result of this change is that we will stop using signal all together. They've accomplished the exact thing they said they want to avoid.

Post reply on HN