• admiralteal
    link
    fedilink
    14
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    And while it will always be controversial, I’ll say it over and over again: you MUST support some kind of adversarial interoperability for a messaging client, at least if you want me on your service. In the US, that means having some degree of SMS support since that’s what most people can use by default. In many parts of the world (at least pending the new EU directive), you don’t even have that since the primary means of messaging most people is proprietary services.

    Signal walked back from even bare-bones SMS support in their app. If they had supported it, including forwarding messages to desktop/tablet clients , I am sure it could’ve given them a high degree of user retention. Maybe even some opportunities to conversion, e.g., a user getting a prompt when starting a new SMS that the sender is on Signal. They instead focused on maintaining the walled garden and that creates an INTENSELY high up-front cost. For someone like me, who puts a high priority on juggling as few of these apps as possible to communicate with people, it’s an unreasonably high one. I have no more desire to try and fight to convert all my parents to Signal as getting them onto a Discord server or any other random, narrow-field service that they will not be able to ding strangers on.

    It’s absolutely unintelligible to me that no competitor has seen plainly what makes iMessage so strong: that it works by default with pretty much everyone with nearly zero friction to the user by supporting a nearly universal fallback.

    It also is why it makes so much damn sense to me that the EU passed the adversarial interoperability rule. Because the had very close to nothing for a universal fallback.

    • @InfiniWheel@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1010 months ago

      Signal’s SMS support was basically just a novelty in most of the world. Where there really isn’t much chance of Signal taking over any time soon.

      There is virtually no benefit for the average user to use Signal over Whatsapp, unlike the possible benefits of Signal over SMS/iMessage. Telegram on the other hand is very attractive to them because of all the bells and whistles it has. The only difference Signal has from Whatsapp is that there’s next to no one using it, and given how a lot of the world runs on low end phones, having an app on your phone to chat only with like 1 person at best is a waste of space.

      Signal axing SMS support got it into an awkward spot where it doesn’t have “anything” going for it in neither its home country or everywhere else.

    • @xodoh74984@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      010 months ago

      I fully support the push for open protocols. It’s insane to me that most walled garden messaging apps are largely a wrapper for XMPP.

      Signal supporting SMS would be nice, but I certainly prefer web based protocols over MMS for sending media. The less compression there is on the photos and videos I share the better.

      Other than being forced to use WharsApp due to their market dominance, I have no desire to use anything proprietary or closed source.

      Signal is my top choice open source option, because it’s easy for my family and friends to just use, and it’s one of a very small pool of messaging apps that is verifiably private and secure.