11–20 of 78 posts
That makes no sense because SMS-compatibility is the trojan horse to get adoption. Without SMS it's just another messaging app with huge network-effect adoption challenges.
"We don’t want the state-run telcos in Saudi, Iran, Bahrain, Belarus, China, Egypt, Cuba, USA, etc… to have direct access to the metadata of TextSecure users in those countries or anywhere else." I <3 Moxie.
You will like him more if you read why Saudi is the first one in that list.
For contacts that have intermittent or expensive data connections, especially while roaming, the ability to use SMS was a selling point vs other messaging systems.
Telco's in my country record and store SMS data for a period and knowing this data was encrypted and unreadable by them was another useful feature of TextSecure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They will still rely on GCM for the wakeup event so I don't see why it'd make any difference. Presumably the plan is that TextSecure will store the messages and when the app is open, it will build its own connection to the TextSecure servers until the app shuts down. But eliminating GCM entirely would mean the app must run all the time, understand how to handle the NAT timeouts and the servers would need to handle mi…
whatsapp and fb messenger work perfectly without google play services installed. whatsapp even manages to update itself. i see no reason why TextSecure could not do it. It's an app that is focused on privacy, and as such should work without closed source software from the largest data collector in the world installed on the phone.
I agree it would be a lot better if it didn't require Google Play Services, but I'm not sure how realistic that is. Google has worked hard to make the Play APIs indispensable for anyone trying to work with Android.
I understand the decision is, again, for the greater good, but I can't help to think it's going to leave a hole.
That makes no sense because SMS-compatibility is the trojan horse to get adoption. Without SMS it's just another messaging app with huge network-effect adoption challenges.
What I'm trying to say is, very few people here care about SMS compatibility.
That makes no sense because SMS-compatibility is the trojan horse to get adoption. Without SMS it's just another messaging app with huge network-effect adoption challenges.
I hope this distinction is called out effectively in the UI. It would be a real disaster if people thought they were sending secure SMS, when actually they were using plaintext, or got confused between which are SMS messages and which are TextSecure messages.