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

181–190 of 258 posts

Re: I asked Signal motivations for SMS removal

#181

Post by somehnacct3757 »

hiq wrote: post #167
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?

You're right, I guess they're a blend of the cross-promo strategy as well.

Re: I asked Signal motivations for SMS removal

#182

Post by up6w6 »

benj111 wrote: post #81
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…

I don't think that would work, because then they'd just introduce their own messaging standard. https://xkcd.com/927/

> the difference is that matrix isn't trying to become the One True Standard, but just glue the others together. @xkcdComic

https://twitter.com/matrixdotorg/status/841424770025545730/p...

Re: I asked Signal motivations for SMS removal

#183

Post by beojan »

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.…

> The only large group of people who still primarily use SMS to communicate person-to-person is Android users in the USA.

This is precisely why RCS and MMS support aren't important. I just need Signal to deliver SMS authentication codes and notifications. For person-to-person communications I'll use Signal protocol.

Re: I asked Signal motivations for SMS removal

#184

Post by tssva »

bewilderbeast wrote: post #47

I have 2 issues with RCS: 1. Requires data connection, either WiFi or mobile data. SMS does not. 2. On Android, it goes through Google Messages. I don't trust Google. So, I replaced Messages with another SMS app that doesn't spy on me and disabled RCS. If I wanted to do rich messaging through data connection, I would use Signal or similar. So, RCS is not a replacement for SMS. It's just another IM protocol. And we ha…

"2. On Android, it goes through Google Messages. I don't trust Google.

So, I replaced Messages with another SMS app that doesn't spy on me and disabled RCS. If I wanted to do rich messaging through data connection, I would use Signal or similar."

3rd party SMS apps use a Google provided API to send and receive SMS messages on an operating system provided by Google. I'm not sure how you think using a 3rd party SMS app would be protecting you if Google cared about spying on your messages.

RCS through Google Messages is end to end encrypted while SMS is not, so you haven't eliminated Google in theory spying on your messages but you have assured that your carrier, the recipients carrier and whomever controls the OS and app on the destination device can potentially spy on your messages.

Re: I asked Signal motivations for SMS removal

#185

Post by stereoradonc »

cabbagesauce wrote: post #57
microtonal wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that differs very much per country. The last time I have received an SMS from a human in NL must have been a decade ago. In many European countries, sending SMS was quite expensive, leading to early and very wide adoption of WhatsApp.

NL is rather small sample to, say, larger countries like Poland that use SMS quite frequently. And depending on carrier, SMS texting most likely will be completely free with most of the current plans. Signal's rationale is just Signal's own reluctance to build an umbrella messenger. And given they do drop SMS, still won't introduce usernames it's very hard to actually sell it as a WhatsApp replacement. And now, with…

Completely agree with your assessment.

Re: I asked Signal motivations for SMS removal

#186

Post by pmontra »

modo_mario wrote: post #22
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.…

SMS is still rather common here in Europe. Even if a ton of people use whatsapp and such SMS is often a safe option to initiate with or something trough which you get certain kinds of automated messages like appointment reminders or verification codes.

I send maybe one SMS per year, not every year, when I think a person could be offline or in low signal areas. SMSes get where data don't.

I receive dozens of SMSes from banks with one time passwords for 2FA and payments notifications, from delivery companies to notify me about progresses in my orders plus some spam. It's easier for them to use SMS than anything else because every phone receives SMS right out of the box.

Re: I asked Signal motivations for SMS removal

#187

Post by Markoff »

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.…

> the group of people using it to communicate is really small and shrinking every year

Group of people using it to communicate might be small, but group of people using SMS to get verification codes, messages from delivery company about scheduled delivery, doctor appointment reminder etc. will be for sure 90% or more phone users at least in Europe

So I find it very stupid to say nobody use SMS, because pretty much EVERYONE use them, just not to communicate with other, but to receive messages and you still need some app to receive these messages. So while I can communicate with almost everyone through Whatsapp I still need to use SMS app almost every day and I'd rather have all my communication consolidated in one app than must switch between apps to check the codes or other stuff, man I wish Whatsapp supported at least receiving SMS, actually I'm pretty sure that would be enough for majority of people which don't really need to compose message.

Re: I asked Signal motivations for SMS removal

#188

Post by jeroenhd »

DocTomoe wrote: post #51
robobro wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Matrix

It is my understanding that this mostly works with rooms/channels over bridges - not with individual, 1-on-1 communication. Do you have a hint how to set this up?

I have set up a bridge on my own server. I bridge 1-on-1 chats and group chats equally and have set up spaces to separate the different clients for ease of overview.

Bridging chats of different technologies doesn't work well/at all (i.e. Signal bridge + WhatsApp bridge users in a single room) but bridging external chats (DM or group) into Matrix works very well. Some services need a daemon running on a phone (i.e. WhatsApp) and that's very annoying, but where possible these bridges all run in the cloud.

If you trust third parties, you can also go the easy route by getting a subscription from EMS (https://element.io/matrix-services/ems-pricing) or Beeper (https://www.beeper.com/). I personally prefer to keep my messages and encryption keys on devices I control, but others prefer to let someone else take care of it all and I respect that.

It's relatively straight-forward to set up a bridging server if you're comfortable with Docker and YAML files. You can read how to set up a Matrix server here: https://matrix.org/docs/guides/free-small-matrix-server and here: https://github.com/spantaleev/matrix-docker-ansible-deploy/b...

If you use the Ansible playbook, all you should really need to do is run through the setup, fire up a Matrix client, start chats with bot accounts, and follow the instructions on the guide (usually sending /login to a bot and authenticating your account with whatever service you're bridging).

Your Matrix account doesn't have to be on the same server as your bridges, which is a setup some seem to prefer. You can set up a Matrix server just for bridging so that you don't need to set up all the VoIP features and performance tricks while keeping your own server dedicated to just bridging stuff. This does break some nice features (i.e. double puppeting, a bridge feature) but it also makes your own server less of a single point of failure if you ever do get talking on Matrix.

Re: I asked Signal motivations for SMS removal

#189

Post by dureuill »

_heimdall wrote: post #166
dureuill wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The reality is that leveraging closed networks to gain effective monopolies (with all their known harmful effects) is a winning strategy with little counter strategies.

Users cannot switch to another OS because if they do they won't be able to communicate with social circle. This is also completely artificial because the networks have otherwise pretty much the same feature sets and are only distinguished by their accreted userbase.

Concurrent cannot compete because they can't gain enough users to get a critical mass

I wager that no single entity should have so many captive users.

Regulation is clearly in order

Re: I asked Signal motivations for SMS removal

#190

Post by phh »

izacus wrote: post #176
phh wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. True RCS isn't supposed to go through internet, it's supposed to go through same way as SMS and voice calls (which is also a data connection, but specific to sms/rcs/voice) 2. That's not a requirement even though Google does their best to kill all alternative implementations. (Samsung had one, but Google paid them a lot of money to get rid of it. I have to admit I don't know who is left with their own RCS client)…

RCS might be a federated standard, but before Google not even Verizon at AT&T wanted to federate.

Not sure why you'd say "not even Verizon". Verizon is literally the worst carrier worldwide (ok maybe after NTT) with regards to interoperability.
Post reply on HN