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

161–170 of 258 posts

Re: I asked Signal motivations for SMS removal

#161

Post by groestl »

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…

Probably because I haven't witnessed the Textsecure days: I didn't even know Signal was doing SMS, until these days. Certainly didn't convince anyone to use Signal by telling them it was a better SMS app. So SMS as killer feature seems to be, at least for my peer group, firmly in the past.

Re: I asked Signal motivations for SMS removal

#162

Post by somehnacct3757 »

Signal's maneuver may be rational, but that doesn't make it good business. You can't just release a chat app into the wild. You need some strategy for how you will bootstrap users. If you build it they won't come.

Some chat apps bootstrapped by riding emerging markets with exorbitant SMS costs. Others bootstrapped by cross-promotion from existing popular communication networks.

Signal's strategy was to replace your current SMS app as-is and then incentivize you over to their network one contact at a time. It didn't work, for the stated reasons, which honestly sound like failures of product design and engineering more than anything else. Apple's Message app has the same strategy and it's working.

We haven't actually seen what Signal's next strategy will be, which is maybe a timing mistake as announcing a viable alternative could have taken some heat off the SMS retirement announcement. Or maybe there isn't a next strategy?

'The super secure chat network' is not a bootstrap strategy, it's a build it and they won't come strategy; so I think it's fair to remain bearish on Signal's future even after reading a rational take on why writing SMS apps are difficult.

Re: I asked Signal motivations for SMS removal

#163

Post by miroljub »

Semaphor wrote: post #148
miroljub wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, I remember that, although EU regulation was in effect, I still couldn't keep my number when switching from O2 to Tchibo (O2 reseller) because O2 did not allow that "for technical reasons".

Re: I asked Signal motivations for SMS removal

#164

Post by ajsnigrutin »

wongarsu wrote: post #88
polskibus wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was ages ago. Most people have unlimited text messages these days (SMS, not MMS).

Yes, but the point is that in some countries this happened so late that everyone already switched to Whatsapp before SMS became effectively free. And once everyone is on Whatsapp there's no point in switching back to SMS.

Not in most countries I've been...

It became common to get atleast 1000 sms in your plan, combined with maybe 100mb of data back them, then unlimited sms with 1gb of data, and then slowly data went upwards while sms can't go up from "unlimited". 100MB is not enough to leave "the internet" running 24/7 on your phone, so internet-based chat services were unusable for general reachability back then (we're talking about early symbian and stuff like msn messenger era), and you just sent an SMS (becase 1000 is enough for everyone... except teenage girls back then(.

Re: I asked Signal motivations for SMS removal

#166

Post by _heimdall »

dureuill wrote: post #150
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

The answer doesn't always have to be larger governments and more oversight.

Users can switch to another OS if they really cared that Apple refuses to use industry standards, hamstrings their own mobile browser to bolster app sales, and violates antitrust laws with their ban on third party browser rendering engines.

Re: I asked Signal motivations for SMS removal

#167

Post by hiq »

somehnacct3757 wrote: post #162

Signal's maneuver may be rational, but that doesn't make it good business. You can't just release a chat app into the wild. You need some strategy for how you will bootstrap users. If you build it they won't come. Some chat apps bootstrapped by riding emerging markets with exorbitant SMS costs. Others bootstrapped by cross-promotion from existing popular communication networks. Signal's strategy was to replace your c…

> Apple's Message app has the same strategy

Maybe coming preinstalled on all i-devices helps?

Re: I asked Signal motivations for SMS removal

#168

Post by avsteele »

I'll say what I said to Edith on twitter:

------------------

This will relegate Signal to niche use.

I don't even know if I will keep it and I've been a booster for years. I'll have to remember which ~5 of my contacts use Signal, and mentally update that list when/if any join?

Can't take on that cognitive load for everyday comms.

-------------------

Re: I asked Signal motivations for SMS removal

#169

Post by hiq »

izacus wrote: post #67
joel35 wrote: post #21

With Signal moving away from SMS, the required messaging app stack on my phone just to be able to receive everything sent do me will have to be: - Signal -> Close friends & family I've convinced to use it. - WhatsApp -> Most of my friends. - SMS -> School notifications, 2FA, shipping updates, etc. - Facebook Messenger -> Elderly relatives - Telegram -> That one relative who wants to use this instead of Signal. Is the…

No, there isn't any, because outside Telegram and SMS, none of those apps really support any APIs or 3rd party clients. Signal team is also actively hostile to any 3rd party client usage of their service. And that's always cheered on this website - just remember the RCS topics where people were making fun of attempts to add some basic standardisation to this mess.

> Signal team is also actively hostile to any 3rd party client usage of their service.

"actively" is a big word, there are several 3rd party clients and no big push to make them stop. They don't want widespread 3rd party clients though.

Re: I asked Signal motivations for SMS removal

#170

Post by avsteele »

somehnacct3757 wrote: post #162

Signal's maneuver may be rational, but that doesn't make it good business. You can't just release a chat app into the wild. You need some strategy for how you will bootstrap users. If you build it they won't come. Some chat apps bootstrapped by riding emerging markets with exorbitant SMS costs. Others bootstrapped by cross-promotion from existing popular communication networks. Signal's strategy was to replace your c…

This is a fantastic summary.
Post reply on HN