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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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
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.
I thought RCS explicitly wasn’t E2EE?
Based on how those work, the answer is likely: When a SIM from a mainland mobile company is in the device, E2EE is disabled.
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.
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...
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.
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 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.
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.)
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.
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.
Getting messages to flow across all of them is impossible.
I've had 0 issues syncing between my iPhone/iPad/Mac... and i use the app daily.
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.
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.
"Hey there please click on this link to talk to me"
=> Malware! Blocked.
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...
every iMessage you send and receive can be read by Apple (and the feds without a warrant). It is effectively not end to end encrypted at all. There is no security and there should be no “feeling of security” because it’s a platform designed to aid illegal government surveillance.
Further, Apple ended up rolling out Advanced Data Protection for iCloud in 2023, so users who truly don't want Apple holding those keys can effectively take them from Apple.
https://support.apple.com/guide/security/advanced-data-prote...
EDIT: Just confirmed with a test device and test apple id, iCloud for Messages is not enabled on it.
iCloud backup IS enabled. But Messages in iCloud is off.
TIL.
Sneak was right -- by default iCloud backup is enabled and is backing up all iMessage, SMS, and MMS messages.
I was just caught up on the difference between iCloud for Messages and iCloud backup of messages.
Apple support article that lays out what's backed up by default:
> it’s a platform designed to aid illegal government surveillance.
Come on.
Literally all you need to do is turn on a new iPhone and try to install any app. It will prompt for your Apple ID login (impossible to install apps without it) and will automatically enable iCloud, iCloud Backup, and iMessage (and will not enable ADP).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2020/01/21/appl...
They explicitly killed the e2ee support for backups some time ago at the behest of the FBI to preserve the backdoor. It’s still practically backdoored for nearly all iMessage users because it is off by default (and the UX sucks even if you turn it on). Approximately nobody is using it; the status quo is preserved. iMessage is backdoored and is not e2ee due to key escrow. If you message someone on iMessage, Apple will be able to read the message, even if you have ADP enabled (because the other endpoint does not). That’s fact, today.
Additionally, even if you turn on ADP, the hashes of unencrypted file content in iCloud are stored non-e2ee, so Apple can still see who has which unique files and when, and who else receives them and when. This allows them to monitor social graphs, too.
Not only will it not enable ADP, it won't even ask you about it.
> Come on.
Whilst I agree with the general skepticism, Apple didn’t add E2E encryption to (certain parts of) iCloud backups at the explicit request of the FBI.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/01/apple-reportedly...
Virtually every other big messaging service offered (optional) E2E at that point.
I’m not sure how much clearer you want it.
“Surveillance” doesn’t have to mean that Apple allowed the FBI to jack directly into the iCloud servers.
My friend group is very mixed and Signal is what we use.
In light of that Apple's message reads more like announcement that people who can afford iPhones will now have better security and privacy when they chat with themselves.
But I am a classical musician so for the love of god don't listen to me.