Hacker News Reader

Comment by adamtaylor_13 | Hacker News Reader

In my experience, these markets can overlap but don’t necessarily always do so.

I message everyone via iMessage, and while I enjoy the feeling of security from the blue bubble it’s not a must-have for me. Signal on the other hand seems like a must-have for many people living under oppressive regimes or whose data is significantly more valuable than mine.

I am one data point, but that’s what I’ve noticed in my bubble.

View on HN

For me, Signal is so much better for my friend or work group chats. My friends are on a mix of devices and platforms, and Signal is a lot nicer for embedded media sharing. And the auto disappearing feature is a must!

Hmm… Does signal only really work when everyone uses it? Or can you include people who are just using regular SMS?

Only Signal users. The Android app used to work with SMS/MMS until a couple years ago.

I don't think any app besides iMessage can even get permission to read SMS on iOS, there are no alternative message apps I'm aware of like with android.

It used to have SMS support but they yanked it maybe a year or so ago. The big issue on the user end was, if someone deleted Signal and you used Signal for your SMS, it would keep sending them signal messages and not SMS. So you were left not realizing you were texting essentially a dead number.

...much like iMessage.

It didn't show the icon for the message status, same as any other signal message?

The regular SMS/MMS feature was removed and for good reason. Many people cried about it but it was the right call. Messages would not be E2EE and people could easily think all messages sent through Signal are safe when they weren't.

The main things holding back Signal usage in my case is practically nobody in my social circle using it and the desktop client not being as nice as that of Messages or Telegram, the latter being particularly relevant for myself and contacts who primarily message with their computers rather than their phones.

Using Linux iMessages doesn't even have a client...

Sounds like time to become an evangelist then. I had to do this in my group and other than security a major benefit is just that getting potatos instead of pictures has significantly declined.

Here's my advice: don't sell security as the foremost feature. Sell it as "iMessage, but for everyone." You got stickers, reactions, high quality videos and images. Then mention security, it is the cherry on top.

Every single person I converted to using Signal stopped using it when SMS support was removed.

HN tends to be a younger crowd whose peers cycled through a number of social-networking and messaging apps as popularity waxed and waned. But older generations don't see any compelling reason why they should bother splitting their conversations over multiple apps, when literally everyone with a mobile has texting. Being a drop-in replacement for texting, so they could have additional features without additional hassle was the only thing that convinced them to switch and now it is gone.

I've given up evangelizing Signal, and resigned to the idea that cross-platform RCS is the only thing that will bring encryption to the majority of my contacts.

Yeah I think this was a bad move for Signal, but I didn't see that happen to my group fortunately. In Signal's defense, my understanding is that this was really an Apple thing. That Apple only lets iMessage connect to SMS so the apps were differing significantly.

I also get the fatigue. Moxie said centralized because they needed to move faster. But Signal has always moved very slow, so it does feel off. But to be fair, it's not like most messenger apps do much.

They were talking about on Android. Signal supporting SMS was never a thing on iOS.

That's my point though. That it is harder to maintain a feature that not only doesn't exist on both development platforms, but can't work on one of them.

Signal is only like 42 people.[0] You gotta triage a lot of stuff. I wish the feature still existed, but I can totally understand why they did that. I'm pretty sure not all 42 people are programmers.

[0] https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/824...

> I also get the fatigue.

Agreed. I put most of the blame on Google for deciding to implement RCS as a feature of Messages, rather than an Android OS library/service that any developer could use like SMS.

> HN tends to be a younger crowd whose peers cycled through a number of social-networking and messaging apps as popularity waxed and waned. But older generations

What is your definition of younger and older? Anybody born in the 70s or later experienced an ongoing procession of instant messaging choices. I would tell you it is precisely that experience that informs my apathy towards the latest and greatest Hot Thing, and makes me appreciate boring old SMS (and by extension, iMessage) that I know will just work with anyone I meet.

Are you from the USA?

I don't like splitting my conversations over multiple apps when literally everyone with a mobile in Argentina has WhatsApp. SMS costs money and having it in the same app as a free messaging platform sounds risky :P

> I don't like splitting my conversations over multiple apps

Most people don't. The issue isn't what country I live in (fuck man, I got SMS, WhatsApp, Signal, Slack, KakaoTalk, and I've even forced some people to not contact me through some apps so I could reduce). You missed the actual content of the message about how there is a reasoning for this change beyond Signal. You got to be careful with blame because there are often things upstream that cause things downstream but the fingers are often pointed at what's downstream, not upstream. We can't resolve problems if we only focus on downstream. You have to consider both. I hate it too, because it is the mental version of using multiple apps. But that's the way things are and I want to actually reduce the problems, not run around with a box of bandaids.

> resigned to the idea that cross-platform RCS is the only thing that will bring encryption to the majority of my contacts

I thought RCS explicitly wasn’t E2EE?

The current standard isn't. Google uses non-standard E2EE, and they and Apple are working on getting it standardized.

If so, how will they meet China's demand that all mobile devices support RCS, presumably because it doesn't employ E2EE?

iOS already has different behaviours inside China compared to elsewhere, for example showing Taiwan's flag or the nine-dash line in the south sea in Maps app.

Based on how those work, the answer is likely: When a SIM from a mainland mobile company is in the device, E2EE is disabled.

"iMessage, except you can't sync message history between devices because Signal feels you're a fucking idiot who can't be trusted, and that Apple's hardware security (market-leading and resistant to near-nation-state-level attacks) is insufficient."

People's eyes glaze over and they go right back to using WhatsApp, which offers nearly everything Signal does, but also full sync. Most people don't care about the differences in privacy.

We're talking about the same company who wanted to scan all your files you uploaded, right?

Uploaded? You forgot what it was about. It was on-device scanning that was the problem.

The plan was to scan (on device) files that were going to be uploaded to iCloud.

Before anyone goes evangelizing Signal, make sure to tell your iOS friends that if they ever lose their phone they lose every message they ever sent on Signal with no way to restore them, and the same applies if they ever get an Android phone (latter also true of iMessage, but WhatsApp is totally cross-platform).

While I agree with your point and I think you're right, let's remember that part of the issue is Apple.

Might be worth reading this comment from the devs[0]. I wish the feature existed too, but I get it and don't think all blame is on them. For lost devices, well... is that a bug? Where would the backup come from? Signal is anti-cloud, as they should be.

BUT, I do think people store too much data. Pictures, messages, etc. I think we're getting very little value for maintaining all of this and that it is mostly laziness. Don't get me wrong, I do it too and I like it and it does come in handy time to time, but my life wouldn't significantly change were this not the case. It's something I'll be irked about when I hit the speed bump the first time but move on quickly (like quitting Facebook). 99.999% of the time it would just result in me asking someone about something months ago and it's never been anything important (because if it was, I'd have made that information redundant, and that's not a action because Signal, that's an action because the information is important and I do this wherever that type of info comes from.) Truth is that >>99.9% of that data is junk. It's only the nuggets we care about and I think it's a bit weird we treat it all the same.

[0] https://community.signalusers.org/t/ios-backup-keeping-messa...

Can't Signal export the local messages? Wire on iOS has local export.

The post addresses that a bit, but it is a few years old now. I'm not a app dev so I have no clue about these systems. But the claim is that Apple doesn't give you a lot of control and that sounds like a very Apple thing to me. I mean aren't they well known for "my way or the highway" attitude?

One thing that the post oddly omits but has been possible and reasonably easy to implement on iOS for ages is simply bundling up messages, keys, etc into an archive in internal app storage and then letting the user AirDrop it to a Mac or another iOS device. I might be missing something but this is the sort of thing a capable engineer can have working smoothly in somewhere between an evening and a few days.

If they want to extend this transfer ability to other platforms, they could do what some comic/manga reader and video player apps have done and bundle in a tiny web server that allows the user to download/upload files with a web browser protected by a username and password, which is started/stopped as needed. As a bonus they could offer this on Android too for wireless backup management.

There’s also nothing stopping them from building Signal clients such that they’re able to directly connect to each other over the local network and do whatever transfers are required that way.

Apple doesn’t prohibit of any of these. I wonder why they weren’t explored.

> bundling up messages, keys, etc into an archive in internal app storage and then letting the user AirDrop it to a Mac or another iOS device.

Wire E2EE messenger on iOS does something similar and allows the user to save the file to any storage provider.

> There’s also nothing stopping them from building Signal clients such that they’re able to directly connect to each other over the local network and do whatever transfers are required that way.

There's also nothing stopping you (or anyone else here) from adding such a feature. Either into the official, Molly, or one of the other forks.

You may also be interested in this feature request.

https://community.signalusers.org/t/signal-airdrop/37402

The thing about message history is that many of the times it’s been useful, I’ve had no way of knowing the messages had any importance in the moment. It’s only been months or years down the road that they’re needed, by which point the person I’d been conversing with has likely forgotten the message content and so asking them again isn’t helpful.

I actually think one of the best parts about signal is the disappearing messages feature

I used Telegram during a time when I lived a cross-border and cross-platform lifestyle.

Telegram, and really Telegram on desktop, was great. I am a stubborn old man at the age of 40, and I really prefer to type on a keyboard. It had a great UI, it always delivered messages, and syncing between devices was seemingly instant. iMessage, somehow, is still not perfect at syncing between devices, and while Signal is quite good at that, it's a pain to start using on a new device, as it doesn't bring along your message history. (For legitimate reasons, mind you.)

Yeah Telegram absolutely nails the desktop experience like few other chat apps do. The way they put all the functional bits into a library to make it easy to build high quality third-party clients helps, too; while the Qt client is quite good across platforms, users also have the option of a Swift-based client on Apple platforms, a WinUI/UWP client on Windows, GTK client for GTK-based Linux desktops, etc which takes it that extra mile. Heck there’s even CLI clients for users of that inclination.

Its security is questionable but it gets users by the boatload anyway because it doesn’t consider any platform an afterthought, they all get first-class treatment. Other cross platform messengers would do well to embrace a similar philosophy.

Sure. Different projects, different goals. At every instant where Telegram had a decision to make between better user experience or user security & privacy, Telegram opted to make a better experience. Signal took significant UX hits to make the privacy promises it makes. The two projects are essentially not comparable. Like, the sane thing to compare Telegram to at this point is Matrix.

Of course, but it’s not just UX that’s being traded off but also potential for mass adoption, and evangelism is likely not enough to close the gap.

Again: different projects, different goals. What Telegram is doing is inherently viral; the platform has an emphasis on bringing huge groups of people together, and the resulting design affordances, and that's a goal that basically works against privacy in the first place. Signal's original goal is to replace intimate messaging.

People who love the Telegram affordances wish that the platform would also suffice for intimate messages. Why have two platforms, two UX's, and (most importantly) two user bases? People who live Signal wish the other thing.

But you can't have both. They are incompatible design spaces. Telegram's security story is atrocious. It's best compared with Slack, not with Signal. If you're looking to compare a serious secure messenger with Telegram, look at Matrix, which has many of the same goals.

It is important that there be a messaging platform in common (if not universal) use that is fit for purpose for secure messaging when it really matters: when the compromise a message could cost lives or fortunes. Most "secure messaging" is LARPing; it doesn't matter if the "E2EE" in a pseudonymous 500-person chat room is secure. By all means, make it harder to dragnet that channel, modernize the protocols, whatever. But you can see right away how little security really matters to these groups, whether they're on Telegram (with no group security) or Matrix (which at least tries), because messaging app affordances are all people talk about with them.

Signal UX is AWFUL if you have a work PC, a home PC, a phone, and a tablet.

Getting messages to flow across all of them is impossible.

Getting messages to flow across lots of different platforms for a single account has been a source for a number of very bad security problems in other messengers. (Recent example: Matrix, Nebuchadnezzar). Different projects, different priorities.

Signal already has the ability to register multiple devices with the same account, though. The only thing they haven't done with this is support sync of past messages. That seems like it should be much simpler than supporting multiple devices in the first place, and I'm wondering if there's some non-obvious attack that they're simply not talking about or if it just hasn't reached the top of their priority list yet.

Why is it impossible?

I've had 0 issues syncing between my iPhone/iPad/Mac... and i use the app daily.

Don’t worry, whatsapp uses the signal protocol and everybody uses whatsapp nowadays

> "practically nobody in my social circle using it"

What i did is, the people i chat with 90% of the time are those in a very small circle around me - maybe 3 people (which i think is the case for most users?)

So, i just installed Signal on the phones of these 3 people;

Problem solved: now most of my messaging happens via an app that respects my privacy.

Signal is actually pretty good for the occasional "cross-iOS/Android" video chat. Can't use iOS Facetime, don't want to use $META, google/meet is OK, but isn't quite as straightforward as "@Signal => CALL_ME".

Anyone can use FaceTime now. Non Apple devices will just join via a browser.

Which is ridiculous

What? how does that work? If you call the cell number of an Android device on facetime, what happens on the android end?

You text them a link to join the call. The Android user can’t be the one to initiate.

Oh. Ok that's never going to work.

"Hey there please click on this link to talk to me"

=> Malware! Blocked.

It’s how many Zoom and Teams calls terminate. Not saying it’s a good idea, but it’s not especially unusual.

But you don't get zoom links via _SMS_ do you?

Almost all links I get via SMS are phishing. The rest is OTP, there is sometimes a link in the same SMS but I _never_ clicked a link in an SMS...

My point is, the inhibition to click a link inside an SMS is very high with lots of users, hence I can't imagine this working well.

Also, it's purely inconvenient. You're not having a conf call at a previously agreed time, you want to call someone, this means it's spontaneous or somewhat urgent...

Most people lead up to an invitation to a video call with text messages (e.g. "When are you free for a video call?") unless they're very familiar with the other party.

thats how almost all video comm platforms work..

> The Android user can’t be the one to initiate.

That sounds like a bad joke. "Everyone can use Facetime, except if you're on a certain platform you have to ask someone on the 'real' platform to initiate the call." That's... not a viable communication method.

Nobody is claiming that FaceTime is the singular universal communications method. Certainly not Apple.

Do you not send messages to any Android users? That is incredibly hard to imagine for me.

My friend group is very mixed and Signal is what we use.

I noticed an uptick in scams using iMessage. It's (almost) obvious that you are not talking to a real human. The scheme is pretty simple: lure you to iMessage, so you feel safe, then propose moving to another chat service that is easier to run bots on (telegram, whatsapp, etc) and start a regular programming.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com