I've been using Signal for a long time. I have repeatedly been unable to convince iOS users to use Signal because "I don't want another app". Android users have been much more willing to give it a shot.
As an android user myself, I much prefer having SMS built in because I use the search feature often to look back through all my SMS/Signal chats. I also regularly forward an SMS message to a Signal user, or vice versa. I'm already starting to feel like those iOS users who told me "I don't want another app"...
Signal seems to be trying to move further and further from "my preferred way to chat with people" and closer to the chat equivalent of "that protonmail account I only log in to when I need secrecy".
I obviously love having security on messages in transit, but I also like being able to keep my message history around and search my conversations for something that happened a year ago. It seems like Signal is on a trajectory to turn everything into disappearing messages. Are they the "safe for activists" communication app, or the "let's try to make as many as possible safer by default" app? Feels like they don't know.
And on top of it all the messaging is just frustrating. "we've taken away an incredibly useful and heavily used feature so we have development resource to better implement shitcoins and such" is such an irritating defense of the decision that I disabled my monthly donation.
I agree completely here. This is terrible news from my perspective too. I use Signal for _all messaging_ (e2e secure or not) for the reasons that you mention.
I've onboarded friends and family, too, ensuring them it should be set as their default messaging app and that it _just works_. Unfortunately, people in the general population seem to have pretty much zero tolerance for any friction whatsoever. If they have to use 2 apps, they'll just end up communicating with me in the clear using their "default SMS" app on their phone. That's what this is going to result it...a reduction in overall message security due to people defaulting to what's easier...which is to _not_ have to remember which app to use for which "send a message" purpose. Fuck.
I understand the argument about people in markets where SMS is expensive getting screwed sometimes when they don't realize they're sending a message over SMS. However could that not be fairly trivially solved for with some UI notification or app setting that warns you about this and allows the warning to be perm-disabled if the user doesn't care!?
I think the real reason here is this desire to transition the service into supporting usernames, which is a topic that's been discussed before (and is explicitly mentioned in the post). Right now the service is tied to your phone number. After this change I suspect it will not be or not need to be.
This is very, very unfortunate for those of us who've convinced a ton of non-technical friends and family to use TextSecure->Signal over the years...
There's another reason for iOS users to avoid Signal: It eats up Gigabytes of storage space, refuses to ever clear it, and the devs are rather resistant to accepting that it's even a problem at all: https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-iOS/issues/4916
The biggest issue I can see with using two separate apps is checking who's on Signal and who isn't. That means opening up Signal to see if they're on there and then switching to SMS if they aren't. I much prefer having both types of contacts in the same UI and it's been obvious to me which messages are secure. Also, when someone then joins Signal, subsequent messages to them automatically get upgraded to being secure with no effort on my part.
Every friend using iOS that I've convinced to use Signal has uninstalled it. They stay registered, though, so I have to notice that my messages aren't reaching them, and re-send as SMS.
> I have repeatedly been unable to convince iOS users to use Signal because "I don't want another app".
Here's how I've convinced my iPhone friends. I tell them if they actually want to send pictures and videos to me that aren't potato quality they can either switch to an Android, email me, or use Signal. At this point Signal is more like a cross platform iMessage. This tends to move people over because Apple's walled garden makes group chats infeasible with mixed devices.
This is an awful decision. I've converted some friends and family to Signal over the past years (it took a while) and it is now their default messaging app on their phones. This is going to confuse them and is going to make it difficult for me to keep convincing them that Signal is the route to use. ("Why do I need 3 apps (Android Messages, Signal, Whatsapp) to talk to people?")
I absolutely agree. Personally, I've managed to convert around 3 times as many Android users as iOS users, because of this feature. And the few people who stopped using Signal after starting using it did so because of limitations in the SMS/MMS features (fewer number of users allowed in group text, etc). I fully expect to loose 2/3 of my Signal contacts as a result of this decision, and may drop it myself if the number remaining is too small to be worth running a separate app, as most of the ones left will probably be on Matrix as well.
It also puts a spot-light on the "your phone number is your username" policy. This made perfect sense when you are using Signal for opportunistic encryption of texting. It is much less justifiable when using it as a Silo'd app. I really hope they change that and give people who were waiting for that change time to join before killing SMS support.
Yes, exactly. The ability to send SMS from the Signal app has meant I've been pretty successful in getting Android users to switch to Signal. Every iOS user I know always just goes back to using iMessage. Now many of those Android users won't bother either.
I hope it's communicated well to users who aren't readers of Signal's blog. I have relatives who use Signal, and they rely on its fallback-to-SMS feature, possibly without fully understanding it. I'll make sure they understand and are aware of this change, but others may be in the same position.
This is an awful decision. I've converted some friends and family to Signal over the past years (it took a while) and it is now their default messaging app on their phones. This is going to confuse them and is going to make it difficult for me to keep convincing them that Signal is the route to use.
I learned to stop trying to improve the technical lives of other people after Dropbox's decision to restrict free accounts to three devices resulted in a shitstorm of angry and confused messages from half the people I know.
+1 to this. If Signal drops Android SMS support, I suspect it'll create friction within my friend group that uses it. I do not want yet another app for just text messages. No thank you.
I think I've burned a lot of social goodwill switching my family and close friends to signal and have no desire to support them through yet another change.
Honestly I'm pretty critical of the Signal app design: from the crypto nonsense, to the removal of chat bubble colors (used to be each person had a color, pretty useful in group chats), to the copious amounts of whitespace that have been linearly increasing for years, to the fact that the design has to change and break familiarity every 6 months or the devs have a stroke.
But I actually like this decision. It makes things less confusing and accidental use of unsecure SMS impossible. The downside is if you still use SMS you have to keep 2 apps, back them up separately, etc.
> "Why do I need 3 apps (Android Messages, Signal, Whatsapp)"
"You need Signal to talk to people on Signal, WhatsApp to talk to people on WhatsApp, and Messages to talk to people on SMS." Seems more straightforward than "use WhatsApp to talk to people on WhatsApp and Signal to talk to people on Signal or SMS; just pay attention to the color of the send button".
I dunno, all my friends use at least a handful of messaging apps (iMessage, FB messenger, Discord, Telegram, SMS). Sure people grumble about a new messaging app but the younger generation seems to not have an issue adopting new things.
I'm very upset by this decision. I've been using Signal as my SMS app for a very long time.
Messages that I would have sent via SMS currently will automatically get sent via Signal if the person I'm sending to has started using Signal without my knowledge. This has happened in several instances where I was pleasantly surprised to see a friend had started using Signal. Now that I'm forced into a separate SMS app, this will no longer be a possibility. I certainly won't be firing up Signal to see if a contact has joined before sending them an SMS.
This. Now you have to remember who is in Signal and who isn't. All because apparently the double-check mark for messages between Signal users and the unlocked icon for SMS messages is too hard to comprehend. SMH.
If I understand this, if I use SMS, I can send to everyone. If I use Signal, I can send to Signal users only. But I don't remember who's on Signal, and who's not. So I guess I will stop using Signal.
Off topic slightly, but it amazes me how much SMS is used in outside my country (maybe just US?). I literally never SMS any personal contacts, usually WhatsApp. Even business stuff, sometimes initial contact may be SMS and then could often move to WhatsApp.
I use signal with a small circle of friends, but no one I know uses SMS anymore.
I have been receiving notifications that a person in my contact list is now using Signal for years.
Apart from that, your use case has another possible issue.
If a person stops using Signal, your messages will go to the void until Signal actually removes the user and your client switches back to SMS. This has caused a lot of confusion for some of my friends when I switched my signal account to a different phone number.
I think it's more reliable to use Signal for Signal.
Well this is also a problem. As it's said in the article, you risk getting charged for an SMS, that in some countries are expensive, most mobile plan in my country have 30+Gb for 7 euros at month, but SMS are 20 cent *EACH*. Practically in my country nobody uses SMS, and SMS are used only to receive 2 factor authentication codes (and spam).
Anyway a normal person already uses multiple messaging applications: WhatsApp, Telegram, Facebook Messanger, Instagram direct messages, the good old email, SMS (I guess somebody they are still used reading the comments), adding Signal it's not that big deal.
... and there's the reason I will likely stop using Signal?
Signal was always one of those "win-win" apps, get more security when it's available and I don't have to worry about adding to the giant bucket of messaging apps.
They were a paragon of putting the user first and I was a strong supporter... but now... Why not Telegram? Or anything else?
I don't need the security, it was nice-to-have. Having to switch between Signal and other apps is a heavy amount of friction.
If this were an in-depth announcement with a long and well-structured technical justification attached, I could understand. Though I suspect I'd likely disagree with the decision, I could probably accept it as a simple different of opinion if the arguments were evidently well-thought-through and considered.
This blog-post is so lightweight. There's no technical analysis. There's barely any justification. Yes we know SMS is insecure and yes - it seems plainly obvious that having them in the same UI could pose UX challenges & user confusion issues. So improve the UX and clarify the distinction. Did anyone in Signal consider the userbase or the advantages of this feature at all?
Definitely the end of my Signal usage anyway. It's my main SMS app: my primary motivator is SMS UX, the ability to securely message a tiny subset of my friends is a very nice but ultimately non-vital bonus. Having a separate app for those people isn't worth my while (they're on other platforms I use more).
> The most important reason for us to remove SMS support from Android is that plaintext SMS messages are inherently insecure.
This is an incredibly bad reason to remove SMS support. Sure, the fact "plaintext SMS messages are inherently insecure" is true, but the implication is not "remove SMS support".
Most people are motivated strongly by convenience. Signal is convenient because of its use as a drop-in replacement for your existing SMS client, so people use it, which increases their personal privacy and security. Removing SMS support will directly and substantially reduce Signal usage, and therefore both of those things.
The solution to "SMS is insecure" is pretty obviously "make a warning message telling users that", which also solves their second problem:
> This brings us to our second reason: we’ve heard repeatedly from people who’ve been hit with high messaging fees after assuming that the SMS messages they were sending were Signal messages, only to find out that they were using SMS, and being charged by their telecom provider.
...and the third problem:
> Third, there are serious UX and design implications to inviting SMS messages to live beside Signal messages in the Signal interface.
This is ridiculous. You're not making a paid product where if your app doesn't look perfect people won't use it - you're making a messaging app, and slightly ugly workarounds are perfectly OK.
> It’s important that people don’t mistake SMS messages sent or received via the Signal interface as secure and private when in fact they are not.
THEN DESIGN THE APP THAT WAY. IT'S NOT THAT HARD.
This post is a travesty, and the reasoning contained inside is completely insane.
Wikipedia says that Moxie is still on the Signal Board of Directors, but I find it hard to believe that he would let something this crazy go through.
This was one of the core features of using Signal for me. I wish they had implemented RCS and more features for SMS instead of removing it. I'm very disappointed with this feature.
As a side note, I'm on the beta, and recently got "Signal Stories". This immensely annoyed me, and had to dig through to remove it (since it wasn't obvious). After the whole crypto thing and these decisions, it might be time to find another secure messaging app.
It's already bad enough that I would never be able to convince family today to switch to Signal due to the removal of SMS history importing and now you want to remove the ability to send/receive SMS via Signal too? Good job guaranteeing you just cratered any additional growth of your userbase.
I've always wondered how companies become so blind to what their userbase actually wants and needs (looking at the majority of the rest of the comments here that seem to echo my sentiment as well) that we end up in situations like this. I guess "you die a hero or live long enough to become the villain" applies to apps too.
Literally the only reason I recommend others and use Signal myself?
Seriously, Signal doesn't have the userbase to drop SMS support. All my Signal contacts use WhatsApp or Telegram that I already have installed. I use signal mostly as a SMS app, secondly as E2E communication. It will be easier to uninstall Signal.
> If you do use Signal as your default SMS app on Android, you will need to select a new default SMS app on your phone. If you want to keep them, you’ll also need to export your SMS messages from Signal into that new app.
This messaging seems a little tone-deaf, given that there is no way to export SMS messages from Signal. Apparently it's possible, using a third-party piece of software, to decrypt your backups and extract the messages, but that's not exactly a reasonable thing to expect people to do.
One of the reasons I liked Signal was because it was easy to get normal people to start using it, because they could just set it up as their SMS app, and continue life as normal, just getting the benefits of encryption for any of their contacts that were also using Signal. Now there's not notably any reason to use Signal as opposed to, say, Matrix.
I completely disagree and am disappointed in this decision. One app on my phone to handle all my messages is easier than making a context switch per-contact.
I also think it'll hurt the value proposition when getting people to join signal. Not overcomplicating the messaging scenario was a big winner to do that.
I do not like this decision. Using Signal as a main SMS provider makes it easier for me to collect all of my messages in one place. Now I have to, YET AGAIN, download an SMS app for use while keeping Signal active.
I'm glad privacy is becoming mainstream but dislike lowering the bar for adoption to where it profoundly affects users.
Unfortunately, at least in the U.S., most inter-OS text-messaging is still done via SMS. Signal was godsend in this field because I can slowly convince my network to switch to Signal (and this in turn had a recursive network effect as then they would do similarly). This change will mean Signal will become another bucket on my phone (along with WhatsApp) where I can talk to only a select few of my contacts.
This feels like a slap in the face. I get the privacy ramifications, but one of the really strong aspects of Signal to me was to go all-in on privacy when needed, and default to something sensible when it wasn't. I'll definitely need to reconsider whether or not to continue my monthly donation, and I don't like that at all.
This seems to be a "bug or feature" situation where the answer depends on the user profile. The ability for messages to leave the Signal app in plaintext SMS is a "feature" for users whose top needs include a single-app UX, and a "bug" for users whose top needs include an app that is foolproof E2EE (so users don't have to consciously pay attention to which conversations are Signal-native vs SMS). Maybe SMS support could be an opt-in feature, to accommodate both groups?
From my perspective (and I am NOT speaking for anybody else) this is an improvement. I already have multiple messaging apps installed, and when I click send on a Signal message I expect it to go end-to-end encrypted or not go at all. But I am not the only user profile.
> We have now reached the point where SMS support no longer makes sense.
What a laughable, out of touch suggestion. Did anyone at Signal actually ask the community what they thought about removing SMS support?
Seriously, this decision is going to kill Signal app. It will halt the majority of growth as evangelists such as myself can no longer recommend it with a straight face. Signal is supposed to enhance the messaging experience, not replace it.
I think Signal thinks they can take on the WhatsApp market, completely misunderstanding why that market didn't choose Signal in the first place. The products serve two completely different user needs, and are highly geographically segregated.
What the heck is going on over at Signal Foundation?
> We have now reached the point where SMS support no longer makes sense
That is hard to swallow, being able to quickly send a message through SMS to the same receiver in emergency situations* was quite handy.
*like when you're at a protest and the tower is overloaded, or you're on a remote location and you see that the Signal message doesn't get through because of lack of 3G/LTE connectivity.
This change will have fewer people use Signal. One reason I was able to convince friends and family to start using it is because it is so seamless. I fear that with this change, Signal for most users will simply become unused, resulting in less e2e encrypted messaging overall.
How do you know if your contacts use Signal and know to use that app instead of SMS/Messages or whatever?
With the SMS integration it was pretty easy because it would just switch over if the other person had Signal or if/when they signed up in the future.
What's the workflow now? Manually ask them on SMS if they use Signal? Just try it and see if it works?
This sounds like one of those "Don't Worry! Rejoice! We're breaking your things!" announcements that hasn't even thought about how people use Signal IRL.
I'm going to stop my monthly subscription to Signal Foundation.
I think the real rationale for this change is signal believes this will push user adoption.
If User A (who uses the signal app) regularly communicates with User B (who doesn't), then this change might encourage User A to ask User B to join signal. It makes a stronger network effect, and will increase viral growth.
However, I think the Signal team is misguided, and in fact they will just lose users who don't want one more app to manage.
[+] [-] daedalus_j|3 years ago|reply
As an android user myself, I much prefer having SMS built in because I use the search feature often to look back through all my SMS/Signal chats. I also regularly forward an SMS message to a Signal user, or vice versa. I'm already starting to feel like those iOS users who told me "I don't want another app"...
Signal seems to be trying to move further and further from "my preferred way to chat with people" and closer to the chat equivalent of "that protonmail account I only log in to when I need secrecy".
I obviously love having security on messages in transit, but I also like being able to keep my message history around and search my conversations for something that happened a year ago. It seems like Signal is on a trajectory to turn everything into disappearing messages. Are they the "safe for activists" communication app, or the "let's try to make as many as possible safer by default" app? Feels like they don't know.
And on top of it all the messaging is just frustrating. "we've taken away an incredibly useful and heavily used feature so we have development resource to better implement shitcoins and such" is such an irritating defense of the decision that I disabled my monthly donation.
[+] [-] nicholasjarnold|3 years ago|reply
I've onboarded friends and family, too, ensuring them it should be set as their default messaging app and that it _just works_. Unfortunately, people in the general population seem to have pretty much zero tolerance for any friction whatsoever. If they have to use 2 apps, they'll just end up communicating with me in the clear using their "default SMS" app on their phone. That's what this is going to result it...a reduction in overall message security due to people defaulting to what's easier...which is to _not_ have to remember which app to use for which "send a message" purpose. Fuck.
I understand the argument about people in markets where SMS is expensive getting screwed sometimes when they don't realize they're sending a message over SMS. However could that not be fairly trivially solved for with some UI notification or app setting that warns you about this and allows the warning to be perm-disabled if the user doesn't care!?
I think the real reason here is this desire to transition the service into supporting usernames, which is a topic that's been discussed before (and is explicitly mentioned in the post). Right now the service is tied to your phone number. After this change I suspect it will not be or not need to be.
This is very, very unfortunate for those of us who've convinced a ton of non-technical friends and family to use TextSecure->Signal over the years...
[+] [-] Waterluvian|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ndsipa_pomu|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CommitSyn|3 years ago|reply
Does anyone have recommendations for a good default SMS app on Android?
[+] [-] NoGravitas|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] godelski|3 years ago|reply
Here's how I've convinced my iPhone friends. I tell them if they actually want to send pictures and videos to me that aren't potato quality they can either switch to an Android, email me, or use Signal. At this point Signal is more like a cross platform iMessage. This tends to move people over because Apple's walled garden makes group chats infeasible with mixed devices.
[+] [-] eatwater123|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pavon|3 years ago|reply
It also puts a spot-light on the "your phone number is your username" policy. This made perfect sense when you are using Signal for opportunistic encryption of texting. It is much less justifiable when using it as a Silo'd app. I really hope they change that and give people who were waiting for that change time to join before killing SMS support.
[+] [-] garciansmith|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JasonFruit|3 years ago|reply
I hope it's communicated well to users who aren't readers of Signal's blog. I have relatives who use Signal, and they rely on its fallback-to-SMS feature, possibly without fully understanding it. I'll make sure they understand and are aware of this change, but others may be in the same position.
[+] [-] causi|3 years ago|reply
I learned to stop trying to improve the technical lives of other people after Dropbox's decision to restrict free accounts to three devices resulted in a shitstorm of angry and confused messages from half the people I know.
[+] [-] pmlnr|3 years ago|reply
This is why we need at least open source clients that can be forked when these decisions are made.
[^1]: https://wordpress.org/about/philosophy/
[+] [-] Kirby64|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fyvhbhn|3 years ago|reply
Because Whatsapp and Signal are walled gardens. (Everyone knows why IM>sms)
[+] [-] zeagle|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrepd|3 years ago|reply
But I actually like this decision. It makes things less confusing and accidental use of unsecure SMS impossible. The downside is if you still use SMS you have to keep 2 apps, back them up separately, etc.
> "Why do I need 3 apps (Android Messages, Signal, Whatsapp)"
"You need Signal to talk to people on Signal, WhatsApp to talk to people on WhatsApp, and Messages to talk to people on SMS." Seems more straightforward than "use WhatsApp to talk to people on WhatsApp and Signal to talk to people on Signal or SMS; just pay attention to the color of the send button".
[+] [-] dymk|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chasil|3 years ago|reply
I don't know anybody else who uses Silence so I could exchange encrypted messages with them.
Oh well. Maybe somebody here could resurrect this?
https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.smssecure.smssecure/
https://git.silence.dev/Silence/Silence-Android/
[+] [-] zuck9|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matsemann|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] numpad0|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] senectus1|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bobbylarrybobby|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theLastOfCats|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fiahil|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] _jsnk|3 years ago|reply
Messages that I would have sent via SMS currently will automatically get sent via Signal if the person I'm sending to has started using Signal without my knowledge. This has happened in several instances where I was pleasantly surprised to see a friend had started using Signal. Now that I'm forced into a separate SMS app, this will no longer be a possibility. I certainly won't be firing up Signal to see if a contact has joined before sending them an SMS.
[+] [-] roter|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bxparks|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jcul|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] giskou|3 years ago|reply
Apart from that, your use case has another possible issue. If a person stops using Signal, your messages will go to the void until Signal actually removes the user and your client switches back to SMS. This has caused a lot of confusion for some of my friends when I switched my signal account to a different phone number.
I think it's more reliable to use Signal for Signal.
[+] [-] fluidcruft|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alerighi|3 years ago|reply
Anyway a normal person already uses multiple messaging applications: WhatsApp, Telegram, Facebook Messanger, Instagram direct messages, the good old email, SMS (I guess somebody they are still used reading the comments), adding Signal it's not that big deal.
[+] [-] KerryJones|3 years ago|reply
Signal was always one of those "win-win" apps, get more security when it's available and I don't have to worry about adding to the giant bucket of messaging apps.
They were a paragon of putting the user first and I was a strong supporter... but now... Why not Telegram? Or anything else?
I don't need the security, it was nice-to-have. Having to switch between Signal and other apps is a heavy amount of friction.
[+] [-] lucideer|3 years ago|reply
If this were an in-depth announcement with a long and well-structured technical justification attached, I could understand. Though I suspect I'd likely disagree with the decision, I could probably accept it as a simple different of opinion if the arguments were evidently well-thought-through and considered.
This blog-post is so lightweight. There's no technical analysis. There's barely any justification. Yes we know SMS is insecure and yes - it seems plainly obvious that having them in the same UI could pose UX challenges & user confusion issues. So improve the UX and clarify the distinction. Did anyone in Signal consider the userbase or the advantages of this feature at all?
Definitely the end of my Signal usage anyway. It's my main SMS app: my primary motivator is SMS UX, the ability to securely message a tiny subset of my friends is a very nice but ultimately non-vital bonus. Having a separate app for those people isn't worth my while (they're on other platforms I use more).
The migration off it will be an unwelcome pain...
[+] [-] throw10920|3 years ago|reply
This is an incredibly bad reason to remove SMS support. Sure, the fact "plaintext SMS messages are inherently insecure" is true, but the implication is not "remove SMS support".
Most people are motivated strongly by convenience. Signal is convenient because of its use as a drop-in replacement for your existing SMS client, so people use it, which increases their personal privacy and security. Removing SMS support will directly and substantially reduce Signal usage, and therefore both of those things.
The solution to "SMS is insecure" is pretty obviously "make a warning message telling users that", which also solves their second problem:
> This brings us to our second reason: we’ve heard repeatedly from people who’ve been hit with high messaging fees after assuming that the SMS messages they were sending were Signal messages, only to find out that they were using SMS, and being charged by their telecom provider.
...and the third problem:
> Third, there are serious UX and design implications to inviting SMS messages to live beside Signal messages in the Signal interface.
This is ridiculous. You're not making a paid product where if your app doesn't look perfect people won't use it - you're making a messaging app, and slightly ugly workarounds are perfectly OK.
> It’s important that people don’t mistake SMS messages sent or received via the Signal interface as secure and private when in fact they are not.
THEN DESIGN THE APP THAT WAY. IT'S NOT THAT HARD.
This post is a travesty, and the reasoning contained inside is completely insane.
Wikipedia says that Moxie is still on the Signal Board of Directors, but I find it hard to believe that he would let something this crazy go through.
[+] [-] CraftThatBlock|3 years ago|reply
As a side note, I'm on the beta, and recently got "Signal Stories". This immensely annoyed me, and had to dig through to remove it (since it wasn't obvious). After the whole crypto thing and these decisions, it might be time to find another secure messaging app.
[+] [-] xingped|3 years ago|reply
I've always wondered how companies become so blind to what their userbase actually wants and needs (looking at the majority of the rest of the comments here that seem to echo my sentiment as well) that we end up in situations like this. I guess "you die a hero or live long enough to become the villain" applies to apps too.
[+] [-] agilob|3 years ago|reply
Literally the only reason I recommend others and use Signal myself?
Seriously, Signal doesn't have the userbase to drop SMS support. All my Signal contacts use WhatsApp or Telegram that I already have installed. I use signal mostly as a SMS app, secondly as E2E communication. It will be easier to uninstall Signal.
[+] [-] NoGravitas|3 years ago|reply
This messaging seems a little tone-deaf, given that there is no way to export SMS messages from Signal. Apparently it's possible, using a third-party piece of software, to decrypt your backups and extract the messages, but that's not exactly a reasonable thing to expect people to do.
One of the reasons I liked Signal was because it was easy to get normal people to start using it, because they could just set it up as their SMS app, and continue life as normal, just getting the benefits of encryption for any of their contacts that were also using Signal. Now there's not notably any reason to use Signal as opposed to, say, Matrix.
[+] [-] chungy|3 years ago|reply
I also think it'll hurt the value proposition when getting people to join signal. Not overcomplicating the messaging scenario was a big winner to do that.
[+] [-] joemazerino|3 years ago|reply
I'm glad privacy is becoming mainstream but dislike lowering the bar for adoption to where it profoundly affects users.
[+] [-] toastercat|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] geewee|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mitchellpkt|3 years ago|reply
From my perspective (and I am NOT speaking for anybody else) this is an improvement. I already have multiple messaging apps installed, and when I click send on a Signal message I expect it to go end-to-end encrypted or not go at all. But I am not the only user profile.
[+] [-] soulofmischief|3 years ago|reply
What a laughable, out of touch suggestion. Did anyone at Signal actually ask the community what they thought about removing SMS support?
Seriously, this decision is going to kill Signal app. It will halt the majority of growth as evangelists such as myself can no longer recommend it with a straight face. Signal is supposed to enhance the messaging experience, not replace it.
I think Signal thinks they can take on the WhatsApp market, completely misunderstanding why that market didn't choose Signal in the first place. The products serve two completely different user needs, and are highly geographically segregated.
What the heck is going on over at Signal Foundation?
[+] [-] miduil|3 years ago|reply
That is hard to swallow, being able to quickly send a message through SMS to the same receiver in emergency situations* was quite handy.
*like when you're at a protest and the tower is overloaded, or you're on a remote location and you see that the Signal message doesn't get through because of lack of 3G/LTE connectivity.
[+] [-] dark_glass|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fluidcruft|3 years ago|reply
With the SMS integration it was pretty easy because it would just switch over if the other person had Signal or if/when they signed up in the future.
What's the workflow now? Manually ask them on SMS if they use Signal? Just try it and see if it works?
This sounds like one of those "Don't Worry! Rejoice! We're breaking your things!" announcements that hasn't even thought about how people use Signal IRL.
I'm going to stop my monthly subscription to Signal Foundation.
[+] [-] londons_explore|3 years ago|reply
If User A (who uses the signal app) regularly communicates with User B (who doesn't), then this change might encourage User A to ask User B to join signal. It makes a stronger network effect, and will increase viral growth.
However, I think the Signal team is misguided, and in fact they will just lose users who don't want one more app to manage.