Google Messages Update Removes Convenient SIM Selector for Dual-SIM Users

There was a time—not very long ago—when sending a text on a dual-SIM Android phone felt thoughtfully designed. You typed your message, glanced at the SIM selector, tapped the number you wanted, and hit send. Simple. Predictable. Human.

That small moment of control is now gone.

With a recent change, Google Messages update removes convenient SIM selector for dual-sim users, and the reaction across Android communities has been swift, confused, and in many cases, frustrated. This isn’t just about a missing button. It’s about how subtle design decisions ripple into daily habits, workflows, and trust.

Let’s unpack what changed, why it matters more than Google might think, and what dual-SIM users are left dealing with now.

The Feature That Quietly Did Its Job

Dual-SIM phones are no longer niche. Professionals juggle work and personal numbers. Travelers rely on local SIMs. Freelancers maintain client-specific lines. For all of them, Google Messages offered a small but powerful convenience: manual SIM selection per message.

Before the update:

• You could choose SIM 1 or SIM 2 directly in the message composer

• Each conversation didn’t lock you into a single SIM permanently

• Switching numbers took one tap, not a settings detour

It wasn’t flashy. It didn’t need explaining. It just worked.

That’s usually the sign of good UX.

What Changed in the Latest Google Messages Update

In the newer versions rolling out gradually, users noticed something missing. The SIM selector—previously visible near the send button—had vanished.

Now:

• Google Messages automatically assigns a SIM based on past behavior or system defaults

• The manual SIM toggle is removed from the chat screen

• Changing the SIM often requires going into contact settings or system-level preferences

In short, google messages update removes convenient sim selector for dual-sim users, replacing deliberate choice with automation.

Google hasn’t framed this as a removal. Internally, it’s likely viewed as a “simplification.” But for people who relied on that feature daily, it feels more like a downgrade.

Why This Is a Bigger Deal Than It Sounds

On paper, this might look like a minor UI tweak. In practice, it disrupts real-world use in ways that are hard to ignore.

Imagine:

• Accidentally texting a client from your personal number

• Sending a family message from your work SIM

• Losing track of which number a conversation is tied to

These aren’t edge cases. They’re common, especially in regions where dual-SIM usage is standard, not optional.

Automation works best when it aligns with user intent. Here, it assumes consistency where flexibility is the whole point.

The Human Cost of “Smart Defaults”

Google’s design philosophy increasingly leans toward predictive behavior—apps deciding what you probably want instead of asking what you actually want.

Sometimes that’s helpful. Sometimes it’s not.

Messaging is personal. It’s contextual. And for dual-SIM users, intent matters more than history. The same contact might need different SIMs at different times, depending on:

• Data plans

• Network coverage

• Billing cycles

• Work hours vs personal time

Removing the SIM selector strips away that nuance.

What replaces it is a quiet tension: Did it use the right number this time?

User Reactions: Confusion First, Frustration Second

Many users didn’t even realize what had changed—until they sent the wrong message from the wrong SIM.

That’s the worst kind of UX change. One that:

• Isn’t clearly communicated

• Breaks existing habits

• Only becomes obvious after a mistake

Forums and comment sections show a pattern:

• “Why did Google remove this?”

• “Is this a bug or intentional?”

• “How do I get the SIM selector back?”

The absence of clear answers only adds to the irritation.

Is There a Workaround? Sort Of.

As of now, there’s no clean, universal fix.

Some users try:

• Changing default SIMs per contact (time-consuming)

• Adjusting system-level SIM preferences (not message-specific)

• Rolling back to older app versions (temporary and risky)

None of these replicate the simplicity of the old selector.

That’s the core issue. When a workaround feels heavier than the original feature, it’s a sign something valuable was lost.

Why This Matters for Google’s Credibility

Google Messages is positioned as the default, future-proof messaging app for Android. It’s tightly integrated with RCS, system features, and carrier services.

When google messages update removes convenient sim selector for dual-sim users, it sends an unintended signal: that edge cases—or what Google perceives as edge cases—can be sacrificed for uniformity.

But dual-SIM users aren’t an edge case anymore. They’re a global majority in many markets.

Ignoring that reality risks alienating exactly the users who depend on Android’s flexibility the most.

A Small Button That Represented User Choice

This isn’t nostalgia talking. It’s about agency.

The SIM selector wasn’t clutter. It wasn’t confusing. It was a visible reminder that the user—not the algorithm—was in control.

Its removal highlights a growing tension in modern software:

• Cleaner interfaces vs functional clarity

• Automation vs intention

• Simplicity vs capability

Good design doesn’t always mean fewer options. Sometimes, it means the right options in the right place.

Will Google Reverse This?

It’s hard to say.

Google has reversed course before when feedback was loud and consistent. But it often takes time—and volume—for those signals to register.

If enough users make noise, there’s a chance the SIM selector could return as:

• An optional toggle

• A settings-based preference

• A contextual button for dual-SIM devices

That would be a reasonable compromise. Choice without clutter.

Final Thoughts

The google messages update removes convenient sim selector for dual-sim users may look like a footnote in a changelog, but it’s a meaningful shift in how Google balances automation with control.

For single-SIM users, nothing changes. For dual-SIM users, everything feels slightly off.

And that’s the problem.

Technology should adapt to human behavior—not quietly reshape it and hope no one notices. When a feature disappears and trust goes with it, the cost is higher than any cleaner UI can justify.