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

I asked Signal motivations for SMS removal

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 258 posts

Re: I asked Signal motivations for SMS removal

#141

Post by miroljub »

Semaphor wrote: post #115
TacticalCoder wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SMS is still used in France too. > I don't get it how having a dozen of messaging apps and remembering who uses what is better than a simple SMS Indeed, especially now that Telegram is taking off by times in Europe (in Belgium / Spain / France at least Telegram is getting used by a lot of people) and that some people now refuse to use WhatsApp. In addition to appointment reminders from doctor/dentist/notary/whatever…

> Indeed, especially now that Telegram is taking off by times in Europe (in Belgium / Spain / France at least Telegram is getting used by a lot of people) Interesting, here in Germany, almost everyone I know has Signal and WhatsApp with some people using only one of them. Telegram I encountered from one US American living here, and from people into conspiracy theories.

In my experience here in Germany, Signal usage has increased drastically in the last two years. When my daughter started a new school, I got enlisted in the parents group on Signal. Previously, parent groups or anything similar was an exclusive WhatsApp territory.

As for Telegram, people mostly use it to consume news. It basically replaced RSS readers for common people. Although its install base is relatively high, I have yet to receive a single private message over Telegram.

Re: I asked Signal motivations for SMS removal

#142

Post by alborzb »

jakub_g wrote: post #42
rjzzleep wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is Signal people had really odd visions how to make basic functionality work. This isn't really because SMS/MMS are bad(yes they are). But there are threads in their issue tracker where Signal people would disagree with basically functionality of responding to text messages on dual sim devices. "We'll always use the Signal registered number as default". One part of this is a terrible(but working) protocol, th…

One thing you need to keep in mind is that if you want an app with strong security, the less code you have, the easier it is to achieve the goal. By definition, Signal is not going to have bells and whistles and niche features, to keep the codebase lean and easier to avoid security weaknesses. If you want an app with many features, use Telegram. (They did however ship emoji reactions in Signal because most people act…

>> curiously missing in Telegram

Telegram has had emoji reactions since 2021 -- https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/now-y...

Re: I asked Signal motivations for SMS removal

#143

Post by jeroenhd »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #17
edent wrote: post #9

SMS was, in my opinion, the killer feature for Signal. Telling people to install yet-another-inbox which was only going to be used by their one privacy-weirdo friend was a non-starter. Saying "this is a better SMS app" got people on-board and let them "upgrade" to secure messaging. That's why I started using it in the "TextSecure" days. But, sadly, I agree with Signal's reasoning here. Mixing the two protocols was an…

As a Dutch person, I'm still amazed that the US still seems to use SMS as much; mind you, our phone plans here were "you get 1000 text messages and X minutes or a bajillion megabytes of data"; that + 'free' international messaging / calls with services like Whatsapp quickly pushed people to data-only messaging like Whatsapp or maybe FB Messenger. We also have a big immigrant population that like to chat with their fa…

I've gotten SMS messages from iPhone users. In some Apple centric areas (rich people or people who think/want to pretend they're rich), I think iMessage is the default.

Fine by me. If they want a better experience, I have almost every messaging app on the Dutch market bridged to my Matrix server so I don't care, they'll just have to live with the lack of features if they want to chat with me (or install something like Signal).

I don't care about RCS and other ISP standards that exist to squeeze more money out of texting. I'll use Telegram/Signal/WhatsApp calling before I'll use my phone app because my subscription doesn't include free minutes (and I barely call anyway) so I've gotten the benefits of tech like WiFi calling through VoLTE for years before ISPs bothered sending their VoLTE profiles to my phone.

Re: I asked Signal motivations for SMS removal

#144

Post by yason »

apexalpha wrote: post #20

I think you're forgetting the main reason: the group of people using it to communicate is really small and shrinking every year. The only large group of people who still primarily use SMS to communicate person-to-person is Android users in the USA. Every other country has settled on either Telegram, WeChat, WhatsApp or FB Messenger, or other niche apps. These apps work on both iOS and Android and often also Windows.…

I have most of my friends using some messenger app and based on that I run―because I basically have to run―Whatsapp and Signal myself. But those are all people I know. What would you use but SMS when contacting people you don't?

Typically, if I try to reach someone but they don't answer I'll follow up with an SMS to explain what I tried to call for. If it's a co-worker, or an acquaintance, I'll send an SMS to make sure they receive my message. SMS is more reliable, doesn't require you to know which apps the other party runs, and it comes through to the recipient as SMS is a basic service in the telecom networks.

When I get to know a new person there's a transition to "oh, you're on $APP too", and I might starting moving non-urgent messages to $APP. But if you don't know the other party well or there's a question of reliability, what is an alternative backbone for messaging if not SMS?

Re: I asked Signal motivations for SMS removal

#145

Post by miroljub »

Semaphor wrote: post #116
cookiengineer wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget 2FA from shitty European companies! And pizza delivery notifications! Jokes aside, I see SMS as a useless protocol; because it cannot be used for identification, and neither can anything be encrypted nor verified without another communication channel. It's also not in the power of the end user to decide whether or not their number gets reassigned, blocked, or does work at all. Most US people seem to thin…

> Most US people seem to think that it's normal to have "one" number for years on end. For the rest of the world, it's not true. Uh, I’m from Germany and had the same mobile number for over 20 years.

Up to relatively recently (a few years ago) it was not possible to transfer numbers from one provider to another.

Even two years ago, I had to actually change a phone number because I couldn't transfer my number from one provider to their own reseller. O2 Scheißladen.

Re: I asked Signal motivations for SMS removal

#146

Post by NayamAmarshe »

lucb1e wrote: post #106
NayamAmarshe wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's insecure by default Any proof? If you're calling MTProto 2.0 'insecure' then you should know it's already been audited multiple times in the last 2 years. If insecure means not using E2EE, then I guess the whole infrastructure of the internet is insecure. > It's not even anonymous It's more anonymous than Signal is. It requires phone number to register but you don't need to share a phone number or any personal…

> > It's insecure by default > If you're calling MTProto 2.0 'insecure' then you should know [...] If you're calling "secret chats" the default, then you should ask around or try to use telegram on desktop or just open telegram and see how much stuff is actually encrypted.

> If you're calling "secret chats" the default

MTProto is the name of the:

1. Cloud Encryption

2. E2E encryption

algorithm at Telegram. MTProto 2.0 is not just secret chats, a different implementation is used for cloud: https://core.telegram.org/mtproto/AJiEAwIYFoAsBGJBjZwYoQIwFM...

Both cloud and e2ee consist of what's called the MTProto 2.0 algorithm.

Re: I asked Signal motivations for SMS removal

#147

Post by [deleted] »

NayamAmarshe wrote: post #65
jbverschoor wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understood Telegram. It's insecure by default, runs in a different jurisdiction. It's not even anonymous But somehow people started using it because it was "more secure" than whatsapp.

> It's insecure by default Any proof? If you're calling MTProto 2.0 'insecure' then you should know it's already been audited multiple times in the last 2 years. If insecure means not using E2EE, then I guess the whole infrastructure of the internet is insecure. > It's not even anonymous It's more anonymous than Signal is. It requires phone number to register but you don't need to share a phone number or any personal…

[deleted]

Re: I asked Signal motivations for SMS removal

#148

Post by Semaphor »

miroljub wrote: post #145
Semaphor wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most US people seem to think that it's normal to have "one" number for years on end. For the rest of the world, it's not true. Uh, I’m from Germany and had the same mobile number for over 20 years.

Up to relatively recently (a few years ago) it was not possible to transfer numbers from one provider to another. Even two years ago, I had to actually change a phone number because I couldn't transfer my number from one provider to their own reseller. O2 Scheißladen.

> Up to relatively recently (a few years ago) it was not possible to transfer numbers from one provider to another.

Huh, I guess I got lucky staying with Viag Interkom and then O2 (which was an automatic switch when O2 bought them) for so long, I only really switched providers in 2020 which was long after the EU regulation was in effect.

Re: I asked Signal motivations for SMS removal

#149

Post by sillyfluke »

apexalpha wrote: post #20

I think you're forgetting the main reason: the group of people using it to communicate is really small and shrinking every year. The only large group of people who still primarily use SMS to communicate person-to-person is Android users in the USA. Every other country has settled on either Telegram, WeChat, WhatsApp or FB Messenger, or other niche apps. These apps work on both iOS and Android and often also Windows.…

A bit weird for the "I don't use it so who cares" view to take a firm hold here.

SMS is:

1. not controlled by a single company

2. a different network than the internet

3. a fail safe for people who don't use apps or are unable to at a given time for some reason (inc 2fa)

4. a fail safe for a "small group of people" who are suffering the consequences of a natural disaster.

Though perhaps not economically feasible for certain companies, supporting redunancy is as much an honorable goal as privacy.

Re: I asked Signal motivations for SMS removal

#150

Post by dureuill »

apexalpha wrote: post #20

I think you're forgetting the main reason: the group of people using it to communicate is really small and shrinking every year. The only large group of people who still primarily use SMS to communicate person-to-person is Android users in the USA. Every other country has settled on either Telegram, WeChat, WhatsApp or FB Messenger, or other niche apps. These apps work on both iOS and Android and often also Windows.…

this really speaks to the urgent need of making interoperability legally mandatory for the bigger actors so one isn't socially forced to use one or two applications that are provided by a private actor
Post reply on HN