Why Do People Still Text
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I love the idea - having a conversation with my boss that's all saved to email but done through an IM client would be awesome!
We were doing this with Zimbra around 2007.
and what did it look like on the desktop? like the old AOL chat client (or any of the thousands that are out there - they are all pretty much the same).... and what did it look like on mobile?
It was XMPP so looked like whatever you wanted. But the web client built in was very lean and right on the interface. On the phone it just used the native client or whatever you chose.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
By free I assume you mean the use of someone else's wifi connection, not a cellular data connection.
I've listed this caveat before. And I totally understand that it is apples or oranges. BUT.... with convergence you have to assume that you will, one way or another, attempt to have Internet access. That might be a horribly wrong assumption, but that is the assumption. That by going to a single universal platform you eliminate the need to get many platforms AND the platform is vendorless and generic. So I can use any Internet, anywhere to get what I need. I can borrow someone's phone, computer or wifi... all will let me retrieve my email. The email itself costs nothing, the platform is universal and equitable.
With an SMS I cannot do that (unless I hijack it to non-SMS like Apple and Google are doing - which is an attempt to reconverge a non-convergent technology.) If a message goes to SMS and my phone is gone, destroyed, number changed, out of service, etc. that's it. I can't switch to another medium to get that message. I can't borrow something to get to it. I am carrier dependent, service dependent, number dependent and device dependent.
Sure, but you are with a phone call as well. But from a purely messaging standpoint I see what you're getting at. The question is, does it matter? Like the phone call I'm guessing most people don't believe that a text message will be saved by the receiver for very long, or in general used as an archive (mainly for the reasons you've mentioned already), so it's not like the average user worries about losing their SMS messages, they are probably much more concerned about the lost photos.
Oh that's a different concern, not what I meant. I mean if I'm sending critical info to someone's SMS, they might never get it. It's ephemeral. Only for things that are transient. Like what if there was a big emergency and you needed to fly to California to deal with it. But your phone was broken when that happened. No matter what, you are going to be delayed in getting that message. But if it was an email you can always just go find a way to get the message. If it is SMS, you might never get it but the sending think that you did.
That's a problem with the sender - I never believe that someone gets a text from me until they answer it - and frankly I never believe they get an email from me either, until they respond to it.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
If you email them, are you not forcing them to use email to communicate with them?
That's completely valid. Except that having email is optional. My text is not. I got texts on an account that I didn't even know how it and I was charged for it. I'm sure this happened to tons of people when texting became suddenly in vogue. Nearly everyone has phones, people just started texting even knowing that almost no one had free texts originally. The text functionality was turned on sometimes without people even being told or could not be disabled.
So only sort of. They obviously can and do opt not to have email. It isn't tied to some other service. But text you can force onto a device that they have for another purpose.
OK all that is true, but it's really not an issue any more - most plans these days include texting, so while your point was valid in the past, not so much today.
-
@Dashrender said:
That's a problem with the sender - I never believe that someone gets a text from me until they answer it - and frankly I never believe they get an email from me either, until they respond to it.
The difference is, in one case you have to wait for that response to know anything. Unless it fails on your end. With email it keeps trying from your end. THEN it keeps trying from the server and you know when it got to the server so you know that you got the message "out." Then the server keeps trying and if that eventually fails it tells you. But it is trying all that time. You at least get a confirmation to the point where your side succeeded and you know that it is attempting delivery.
The biggest value to email is that people know not to trust it. I realize this is a human reaction thing. But texts fail a lot but a lot of people just trust them.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
really? So I can go to a t-Mobile store and buy an Android tablet from them ( I assume I must at least do that) that is cellular enabled, and I can get free 400 MB a month wireless data? Damn I'm going to have to look into that.
Chances are once you do that you'll realize how good the TMobile plan is and switch to them. Which is the point of the freebie service
I have AT&T which I switched to from Sprint 2 years ago - I don't recall care who I use as long as it works GREAT at my house and I can roam freely with it. I spend more today than I did when I was on Sprint, and I wouldn't say I'm happy to do so.. but I'm happy to do so since it works everywhere I am.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
If you email them, are you not forcing them to use email to communicate with them?
That's completely valid. Except that having email is optional. My text is not. I got texts on an account that I didn't even know how it and I was charged for it. I'm sure this happened to tons of people when texting became suddenly in vogue. Nearly everyone has phones, people just started texting even knowing that almost no one had free texts originally. The text functionality was turned on sometimes without people even being told or could not be disabled.
So only sort of. They obviously can and do opt not to have email. It isn't tied to some other service. But text you can force onto a device that they have for another purpose.
OK all that is true, but it's really not an issue any more - most plans these days include texting, so while your point was valid in the past, not so much today.
It was written in the past, remember. Yes, it is no longer valid. Most plans include text. But most also include data. So the same point for texting in the past has also gone.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Assuming you have a mobile phone with them. 400 Mb a month?
My father does not. I'm not aware of that being a limitation.
really? So I can go to a t-Mobile store and buy an Android tablet from them ( I assume I must at least do that) that is cellular enabled, and I can get free 400 MB a month wireless data? Damn I'm going to have to look into that.
I just check the deal is 200MB/Month for any eligible tablet you buy from them as long as you also have a cellphone data plan or wifi hotspot with them.
yeah non starter for me then... 200 - couldn't even keep up with FB in that small amount a month. not to mention that I just purchased a new phone for the wife with AT&T, unless the price was that much lower, I'd loose to much on the AT&T phone.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
really? So I can go to a t-Mobile store and buy an Android tablet from them ( I assume I must at least do that) that is cellular enabled, and I can get free 400 MB a month wireless data? Damn I'm going to have to look into that.
Chances are once you do that you'll realize how good the TMobile plan is and switch to them. Which is the point of the freebie service
I have AT&T which I switched to from Sprint 2 years ago - I don't recall care who I use as long as it works GREAT at my house and I can roam freely with it. I spend more today than I did when I was on Sprint, and I wouldn't say I'm happy to do so.. but I'm happy to do so since it works everywhere I am.
TMobile was the best move ever. And their calling over WiFi has eliminated the tie-in so the phone network for calls!
-
@Dashrender said:
yeah non starter for me then... 200 - couldn't even keep up with FB in that small amount a month. not to mention that I just purchased a new phone for the wife with AT&T, unless the price was that much lower, I'd loose to much on the AT&T phone.
But that just means that you always have access to email.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I'm tied to my phone, not because of text messaging, but because it can, wait for it... Ring! The only thing that truly represent something critical is the phone ringing unexpectedly.
See I have email for that. I don't answer the phone if I don't have an email explaining why someone would be calling. I know my dad screens his calls. My wife never answers unless it is me or her sister and even then not always.
I get about 90% spam calls. Phone calls are forced interruptions, they should truly be for emergencies.
Exactly - that was my point. I said this earlier... If I'm calling someone just to BS, I'll text them first, because I know their phone will tweedle RIGHT NOW with the text and if they are free, they will either call me, or respond that they are available.. if not, they either respond, not now.. or don't even bother responding...
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I love the idea - having a conversation with my boss that's all saved to email but done through an IM client would be awesome!
We were doing this with Zimbra around 2007.
and what did it look like on the desktop? like the old AOL chat client (or any of the thousands that are out there - they are all pretty much the same).... and what did it look like on mobile?
It was XMPP so looked like whatever you wanted. But the web client built in was very lean and right on the interface. On the phone it just used the native client or whatever you chose.
Isn't that a chat protocol?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I love the idea - having a conversation with my boss that's all saved to email but done through an IM client would be awesome!
We were doing this with Zimbra around 2007.
and what did it look like on the desktop? like the old AOL chat client (or any of the thousands that are out there - they are all pretty much the same).... and what did it look like on mobile?
It was XMPP so looked like whatever you wanted. But the web client built in was very lean and right on the interface. On the phone it just used the native client or whatever you chose.
Isn't that a chat protocol?
Yes, THE chat protocol. It's XML, by the way
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
That's a problem with the sender - I never believe that someone gets a text from me until they answer it - and frankly I never believe they get an email from me either, until they respond to it.
The difference is, in one case you have to wait for that response to know anything. Unless it fails on your end. With email it keeps trying from your end. THEN it keeps trying from the server and you know when it got to the server so you know that you got the message "out." Then the server keeps trying and if that eventually fails it tells you. But it is trying all that time. You at least get a confirmation to the point where your side succeeded and you know that it is attempting delivery.
This isn't true - you don't know it's gotten there unless you get a recipient receipt, or a read receipt. In the mean time all you know is that your mail client delivered the message to your outgoing email server.
You're also not taking into account spam filtering - which while better today, still isn't perfect and I get weekly calls of missing messages that have been caught in spam filters.
The biggest value to email is that people know not to trust it. I realize this is a human reaction thing. But texts fail a lot but a lot of people just trust them.
Actually I find that people trust both systems equally - so I find myself in the minority that realize that text and email are untrustworthy.
-
@Dashrender said:
This isn't true - you don't know it's gotten there unless you get a recipient receipt, or a read receipt. In the mean time all you know is that your mail client delivered the message to your outgoing email server.
You know that it has gotten off of your device. At least any device that I know verifies this. Because it knows that the transfer was successful. It's only the first stage but it is a level of confirmation that SMS does not have.
-
@Dashrender said:
You're also not taking into account spam filtering - which while better today, still isn't perfect and I get weekly calls of missing messages that have been caught in spam filters.
I don't see how I missed it, I didn't mention it, but there is nothing stopping you from spam filtering SMS too.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
If you email them, are you not forcing them to use email to communicate with them?
That's completely valid. Except that having email is optional. My text is not. I got texts on an account that I didn't even know how it and I was charged for it. I'm sure this happened to tons of people when texting became suddenly in vogue. Nearly everyone has phones, people just started texting even knowing that almost no one had free texts originally. The text functionality was turned on sometimes without people even being told or could not be disabled.
So only sort of. They obviously can and do opt not to have email. It isn't tied to some other service. But text you can force onto a device that they have for another purpose.
OK all that is true, but it's really not an issue any more - most plans these days include texting, so while your point was valid in the past, not so much today.
It was written in the past, remember. Yes, it is no longer valid. Most plans include text. But most also include data. So the same point for texting in the past has also gone.
Absolutely - but replacing it with email does not seem like the correct move. Replacing it with an IM client is - but since you'll never get every phone manufacturer and every phone carrier to agree on a single IM client, that will never happen.
SMSing only exists because it's a follow up to paging. The phone companies found a great solution to a text push need (texts) and everyone at the time all agreed to do it the same. The was easily extended to SMS messaging we have today.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
That's a problem with the sender - I never believe that someone gets a text from me until they answer it - and frankly I never believe they get an email from me either, until they respond to it.
The difference is, in one case you have to wait for that response to know anything. Unless it fails on your end. With email it keeps trying from your end. THEN it keeps trying from the server and you know when it got to the server so you know that you got the message "out." Then the server keeps trying and if that eventually fails it tells you. But it is trying all that time. You at least get a confirmation to the point where your side succeeded and you know that it is attempting delivery.
This isn't true - you don't know it's gotten there unless you get a recipient receipt, or a read receipt. In the mean time all you know is that your mail client delivered the message to your outgoing email server.
You're also not taking into account spam filtering - which while better today, still isn't perfect and I get weekly calls of missing messages that have been caught in spam filters.
The biggest value to email is that people know not to trust it. I realize this is a human reaction thing. But texts fail a lot but a lot of people just trust them.
Actually I find that people trust both systems equally - so I find myself in the minority that realize that text and email are untrustworthy.
You can request read receipts or with SMS and MMS but never every phone has implemented it and it's a separate text not a realtime notification like iMessage is.
-
@Dashrender said:
Absolutely - but replacing it with email does not seem like the correct move. Replacing it with an IM client is - but since you'll never get every phone manufacturer and every phone carrier to agree on a single IM client, that will never happen.
I keep saying that I'm not saying to replace it with email.
Why is a single IM client needed?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
really? So I can go to a t-Mobile store and buy an Android tablet from them ( I assume I must at least do that) that is cellular enabled, and I can get free 400 MB a month wireless data? Damn I'm going to have to look into that.
Chances are once you do that you'll realize how good the TMobile plan is and switch to them. Which is the point of the freebie service
I have AT&T which I switched to from Sprint 2 years ago - I don't recall care who I use as long as it works GREAT at my house and I can roam freely with it. I spend more today than I did when I was on Sprint, and I wouldn't say I'm happy to do so.. but I'm happy to do so since it works everywhere I am.
TMobile was the best move ever. And their calling over WiFi has eliminated the tie-in so the phone network for calls!
Have you found that to be really worthwhile? For example, when I just try to surf the web at a Starbucks using local wifi, I want to off myself because it's so horribly slow! even when there are only 2 people in the shop other than workers...
I always find myself disabling wifi and using Cellular data because it's 100x faster. -
@Dashrender said:
SMSing only exists because it's a follow up to paging. The phone companies found a great solution to a text push need (texts) and everyone at the time all agreed to do it the same. The was easily extended to SMS messaging we have today.
It wasn't extended, it's just paging as it always was.
