I installed #Signal and #Conversations_im on a clean install of #GrapheneOS on my Pixel 4a and measured the battery impact. The results are shocking!
Both messengers had only one contact: my regular phone.
I used my regular phone to send messages to the Pixel 4a (which was not used for anything else over the course of the experiment).
I always sent the same message via Signal and #XMPP (mixing up which app went first). In total I sent ~32 messages in intervals of 10mins to a few hours.
FediVerseExplorer reshared this.
مسعود
in reply to Daniel Gultsch • • •Truly shocking.
What push mechanisms are you using for Signal and for Conversations?
Daniel Gultsch
in reply to مسعود • • •@masoud Both have direct connections to their respective servers because #GrapheneOS comes without Play Services. Both apps prompted me for exemptions to "Battery optimizations" which I granted.
On the sending side I made sure (by looking at the double ticks ✅ ) that the messages were delivered instantly.
MattJ
in reply to Daniel Gultsch • • •@masoud
meejah
in reply to Daniel Gultsch • • •@masoud A big part of the reason centralized push-notifications (aka "Google Play Services") exist is for battery optimization.
You could of course just let Signal use Play Services on graphene if you like.
My experience is different (although I only have Signal, not matrix). My refurbished 7a with GrapheneOS and no Play Services at all in the owner profile lasts easily two days. (That said, it'll mostly be on WiFi while I'm at home -- so possibly the difference is that?)
mathieui
in reply to Daniel Gultsch • • •adb
in reply to Daniel Gultsch • • •Remus
in reply to Daniel Gultsch • • •I would expect Conversations to perform a lot better since matrix is known to be more heavy on ressources but i mention it because it feels like an obvious direct competitor
Daniel Gultsch
in reply to Remus • • •But yes maybe. Signal vs Conversations was easy to pull off because I use both apps on a daily basis anyway. I don’t use #Matrix
iamreinder
in reply to Daniel Gultsch • • •床井 一郎
in reply to Daniel Gultsch • • •So I suspect Signal has a wakelock problem as they haven't tested extensively on devices without Play services? The battery drain is running at almost constant speed.
Conversations is great. There's not much to modify/customise before getting it to run on my devices.
yetzt
in reply to Daniel Gultsch • • •Sandro
in reply to Daniel Gultsch • • •Ichthyx
in reply to Daniel Gultsch • • •jr conlin —〰—
in reply to Daniel Gultsch • • •Not really surprised.
The CPU and Radio on your phone are both high draw devices. It's why your phone wants to kill or sleep any program as soon as possible. FCM & APNS use carrier data (& no encryption) which use much lower power stuff.
Otherwise you get what you see, or worse)
That's why Firefox only does Push it we have access to native, but also why data is encrypted.
Râu Cao ⚡
in reply to Daniel Gultsch • • •Daniel Gultsch
in reply to Râu Cao ⚡ • • •Râu Cao ⚡
in reply to Daniel Gultsch • • •Daniel Gultsch
in reply to Râu Cao ⚡ • • •Râu Cao ⚡
in reply to Daniel Gultsch • • •gumnaam
in reply to Daniel Gultsch • • •Daniel Gultsch
in reply to gumnaam • • •@gumnaam Note that in my testing I never actually opened or otherwise interacted with the apps. (I did make sure that messages got delivered though).
As soon as you start interacting with the apps or if/when they receive a different amount of messages your results get skewed (Screen time is obviously a big contributor to battery consumption)
gumnaam
in reply to Daniel Gultsch • • •Moritz
in reply to Daniel Gultsch • • •Signal consumes half of my battery (no google services or microG) · Issue #9729 · signalapp/Signal-Android
GitHubNorbert Tretkowski
in reply to Daniel Gultsch • • •github.com/signalapp/Signal-An…
Signal consumes half of my battery (no google services or microG) · Issue #9729 · signalapp/Signal-Android
GitHubDaniel Gultsch
in reply to Norbert Tretkowski • • •Marek
in reply to Daniel Gultsch • • •n00b0ss
in reply to Daniel Gultsch • • •Marcus
in reply to Daniel Gultsch • • •pixelschubsi
in reply to Daniel Gultsch • • •Iak
in reply to Daniel Gultsch • • •Jona Joachim
in reply to Daniel Gultsch • • •CryptGoat
in reply to Daniel Gultsch • • •