Hacker News Reader

Comment by vpShane | Hacker News Reader

This means nothing good, Meta and its products are a privacy nightmare, with WhatsApp having major market share outside of the U.S.

People need signal. It's not perfect, but it's the best available.

No source code, wait list, special compatibility with a for-profit ad based company. No thanks.

View on HN

Signal still doesn't allow you to backup/export chat history on iOS into an open format? I think now they have some bullshit proprietary paid cloud storage solution (why not let me use the cloud I already pay for?), but for years they haven't had any solution for iOS at all.

Last time I had to reinstall my phone I ended up having to use & fix some Github project that simulated Signal's transfer protocol to simulate a target device to export my data.

I then deleted Signal and migrated to iMessage/WhatsApp and called it a day.

Any time an app has bizarre functionality gap on iOS, I assume it's because of Apple's anti-consumer bullshit app restrictions.

No idea if that's actually what's going on, but Apple thinks of their devices as appliances and hates when apps offer pro-customer features.

No. The Signal developers opted out of iOS's backup and export features.

I have no idea why, but I would bet it's because it was sending stuff to Apple unencrypted.

It's because Signal has some unhealthy obsession with "security" and does not want to recipient of the communication to ever be able to export messages in plain text.

> Signal still doesn't allow you to backup/export chat history on iOS into an open format?

> I then deleted Signal and migrated to iMessage/WhatsApp and called it a day.

That doesn't fix anything, does it?

Last time I tried to export a years-long WhatsApp chat, I was only able to export a few-weeks-worth, IIRC. WhatsApp chat exports also don't include media. It's just a txt file. The backup is limited to using Google and it's done in such a way that you're not allowed to download it yourself.

The only way to export the chat was to use the web client and scroll all the way to the top, then copy-paste the HTML out of web-inspector once everything loaded. I don't think that's possible anymore. IIRC, the web client now tops at some point with a message like "use the Android app to look further back".

> That doesn't fix anything, does it?

But moving to Signal doesn't either. You're moving from one walled garden to another. If you're going to burn the resources and "political points" encouraging people to move it's better be worth it - right now for the casual user Signal is worse than WhatsApp or even Telegram.

Signal doesn't allow you to do that on any platform. The only way I know of to get the data out is via some random github project to extract operate on the encrypted backup from android: https://github.com/bepaald/signalbackup-tools

Signal's UX is years behind even modern WhatsApp, let alone Telegram, which is closer to a blogging or social platform. We can't expect mass adoption of such a clunky app simply because it's more private – it has never worked that way.

Maybe I'm old, but there is nothing I use in WhatsApp that does not exist in Signal. What are you missing there?

Various group features like communities and group voice chats, public channels, voice message transcription, only three sticker packs and no obvious way to add my own, backup is still marked as beta in 2026, no business features while all business here use WhatsApp in one way or another…

I don't use any of the other features (in fact, I actively avoid them and would disable them if they ever came to Signal), but:

> only three sticker packs and no obvious way to add my own

https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360031836512-St...

> backup is still marked as beta

Also, local backups haven't been beta for ages. The free cloud backups are the ones that are new.

But we're talking about mass adoption, not Hacker News users' preferences. Signal simply doesn't offer anything attractive to most people.

As someone who spends a dozen hours on WhatsApp and Telegram each week, I don't see any real benefits either.

Signal offers a chat app that works fine and is not owned by Meta. That's enough for a significant amount of people to switch already. I'd love some quality of life updates to some of the niche features, like the desktop app, but the mobile app does everything it needs to do.

Community chats aren't what keep people on WhatsApp, the network effect does.

Yeah, and to overcome the network effect, you need something compelling enough to justify the effort in the first place. I have hundreds of local contacts on WhatsApp, many of whom have joined Telegram on their own because of its benefits (for example, a local firefighter feed is shared through a channel there). But I only have about 20 contacts on Signal, even IT guys aren’t there. It simply doesn’t offer anything appealing to at least 95% of the people around me.

>joined Telegram on their own because of its benefits

Sorry, social media masquerading as a secure messaging app isn't a secure messaging app.

I bet nobody joins Telegram because of its perceived security, it's a content platform.

Yup, yet for some reason we see Telegram always pushed on secure messaging app chats, up until the point when someone points out it's not secure at all like it tries to advertise it self. Then it's always about the fun features it has, even if it's acting against the user's best interest, which is the definition of Trojan horse malware .

Also, there's a LOT of people who have joined Telegram because of its perceived security. The company has been extremely vocal about WhatsApp being horrible despite it having always-on E2EE, when in TG it's practically always off.

> It simply doesn’t offer anything appealing to at least 95% of the people around me.

Why not this: what is _best_ for a person once they fully educate themself?

If it were your friend, what would you recommend, once you understood the differences? I just reassessed and Signal wins.

For most people quality of life stuff will probably rank higher than "not owned by Meta". I wouldn't be surprised if a large percentage of WhatsApp users don't even know (or care) it's owned by Meta.

I've been beta testing https://www.joinmorse.com lately it's in very early stages, but it's promising (if you don't care about the "social" features).

Doesn't this signal thing require a phone number?

and people using it. That may not matter much to you, but that's usually what people what from their chat app.

Just use Telegram, at least it’s not U.S. made

* Not end-to-end encrypted by default.

* No end-to-end encryption for groups.

* No end-to-end encryption for desktop meaning normal use when working on computer requires you and your friends to constantly whip out phone to send 1:1 secret chats. Nobody wants to do that so they revert to non-E2EE chats.

* Terrible track record with end-to-end encryption deployment from AES-IGE to IND-CCA vulnerabilities

* CEO pretends to be exiled from Russia but in secretly visits Russia over SIXTY times in 10 years https://kyivindependent.com/kremlingram-investigation-durov/

* Zero metadata protection from server

* Open source, but it's meaningless as it only confirms the client doesn't protect content or metadata from the server.

I think Signal is a better alternative, even though it's US made. It's open source.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com