zlacker

>>mikece+(OP)
Back in the day Signal was called TextSecure and it did everything over SMS which required no centralized infrastructure aside from the cellular networks. They transitioned to internet-based messaging to support Apple devices. It seems that decision is now a 50 million dollar per year step backwards.

>>craftk+p5
It's not a step backwards for me. Our organization uses signal in many situations where SMS isn't an option. When I land in a new country it is normal for my cell/SMS not to work. But I can hop on some local wifi and get signal messages. We had a widespread cell outage in my area last year. Signal not being on cell/SMS meant that I could still communicate with family without need of cell towers. This is a big step forwards imho.

>>sandwo+u6
> When I land in a new country it is normal for my cell/SMS not to work. But I can hop on some local wifi and get signal messages.

WiFi calling is a standard feature that does exactly what you describe for texts and calls, without using a third-party. I have cell connectivity turned off constantly on my phone and yet receive texts and calls via WiFi.

It is actually an awesome feature for receiving 2FA SMS at my parent's place where there is great internet but poor cell coverage.

>>nicola+D7
WiFi calling isn’t always free internationally though, it often gets charged according to your phone plan’s international rates, which is discouraging for many people. Signal, on the other hand, just sees WiFi as WiFi.