Posts by jobangles@mastodon.world
 (DIR) Post #AcrdbFkff7DyXjo5Hk by jobangles@mastodon.world
       2023-12-16T10:08:55Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @Mer__edith @daniel @signalapp @heiseonline I hope you're both not still angry with eachother. I would like to understand the technical details here. If I'm not mistaken, what Daniel is saying is that conversation's persistent client-server connection is more battery efficient than signal's (when not using GCM). It does not seem to me like the connection method itself is affected by the difference in scale between both apps. I.e., could signal not use a similar approach to improve batterylife?
       
 (DIR) Post #AcreB5BkPhYwCsYZLE by jobangles@mastodon.world
       2023-12-16T10:32:28Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @daniel @signalapp I see, thank you for explaining. To offer some context, I have experienced firsthand that Signal will use a ton of battery when not using GCM, so I can confirm that. See here as well: https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/issues/9729. By comparison, in my experience Conversations has been a lot easier on my battery. So I'm genuinely trying to understand why Signal couldn't implement this as well. It would be great if it would use less battery, a lot of people seem to encounter the issue.
       
 (DIR) Post #AcrguWJmaosRHs6opE by jobangles@mastodon.world
       2023-12-16T11:03:06Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @daniel @signalapp I see. Yes that does seem reasonable. People using degoogled Android are already a minority, and if Android in general is as well then I can understand the reasoning behind that prioritisation. So basically then the explanation for Signal not tackling the battery drain issue yet is one of pragmatism, broadly speaking. I would be very interested in hearing the perspective of @Mer__edith on this. Would you agree? Or is the above completely wrong?