Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
@DustinB3403 said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
@scottalanmiller said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
Did you forget that SMS was old, died out, and then came back as a response to too much tech and people liking using old things just to show that they didn't have to modernize?
Email is not modern by any stretch of the imagination.
Not new, but it is the current state of the art. SMS is the polar opposite.
SMS was invented in 1992, email was invented in 1972.
How does that compute that SMS is not more modern than email?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
@scottalanmiller said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
@DustinB3403 said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
@scottalanmiller said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
Did you forget that SMS was old, died out, and then came back as a response to too much tech and people liking using old things just to show that they didn't have to modernize?
Email is not modern by any stretch of the imagination.
Not new, but it is the current state of the art. SMS is the polar opposite.
SMS was invented in 1992, email was invented in 1972.
How does that compute that SMS is not more modern than email?
By not being a factor
SMS is a legacy tech, it's been superseded by loads of things that are converged. Anything non-converged is legacy, period. Email, while older in some senses, remains the state of the art for what it does, literally nothing competes with it. So by being state of the art, rather than a legacy tech, it's more modern.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
@Dashrender said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
@scottalanmiller said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
@Dashrender said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
@scottalanmiller said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
@Dashrender said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
@IRJ said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
I would assume server side encryption probably ok, but end to end encryption is not...
again, what messaging isn't end to end these days?
SMS of course.One can argue that SMS isn't "these days."
Maybe outside the USA.but around here, I don’t buy it.
Meaning... it's not a current tech. It's an intentional use of a non-current tech. Like using cursive.
oh brother.. yes, moms and dads everywhere in the USA are intentionally using non-current tech. Going out of their way to use non-current tech... I just forgot that.
Of course they are, it's called hipsters. What universe have you lived in?
Did you forget that SMS was old, died out, and then came back as a response to too much tech and people liking using old things just to show that they didn't have to modernize?
No, I don't recall SMS ever dieing. I'm guessing there must have been billboards or a Reddit post about to much tech and how hard messaging was, so hey everyone go back to SMS...
I'd say that SMS holds on because it's the default on any phone in the US. it requires nothing special. i.e. the lowest common denominator - just like email.
The problem with "modern" chat clients is they are completely fractured. There's hundreds of them. You don't know what to use until you use a completely different communication channel to tell/hear where people are.
this is made worse by the fact that your kids are constantly bouncing from one service to the next, hardly ever to be tracked, etc..
It's a flipping disaster. It's another reason that email and faxing holds on - it's near universal (in both cases), but secure texting is not.
-
@Dashrender said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
No, I don't recall SMS ever dieing.
That's the problem. Once it made its hipster comeback, it's easy to forget that the market had largely moved past it because it was a dead, antiquated system.
That it wasn't made in the 1800s doesn't change the fact that SMS is conceptually based on and around antiquated tech and needs. It's fundamentally out of place in the modern world.
You could invest a new "dot matrix like" printer tech today, that is already legacy because it's less modern than older tech.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
@DustinB3403 said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
@scottalanmiller said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
Did you forget that SMS was old, died out, and then came back as a response to too much tech and people liking using old things just to show that they didn't have to modernize?
Email is not modern by any stretch of the imagination.
Not new, but it is the current state of the art. SMS is the polar opposite.
"it is the current state of the art" of what? email? well sure - the thing will almost always be the state of the art unless something else exists in that same realm, which for email itself, nothing does.
So you're saying since SMS is a chat tool - and there are other more modern chat tools, SMS isn't modern - OK I'll give you that, but then I'll also say that email is a not the state of the art for message/file transfer either - Teams/Slack/Discord are all modern version of what email can be.
-
@Dashrender said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
I'd say that SMS holds on because it's the default on any phone in the US. it requires nothing special. i.e. the lowest common denominator - just like email.
Except you already made it very exclusive... on phones. That you added that huge limiting factor means "lowest common denominator" it cannot be.
-
@Dashrender said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
The problem with "modern" chat clients is they are completely fractured.
So is SMS. SMS is siloed to individual carriers. And is for device, not people, communications.
SMS has all the limitations and problems of those methods, plus its legacy problems. So if you feel they have issues, you feel SMS has issues.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
@DustinB3403 said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
@scottalanmiller said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
@DustinB3403 said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
@scottalanmiller said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
Did you forget that SMS was old, died out, and then came back as a response to too much tech and people liking using old things just to show that they didn't have to modernize?
Email is not modern by any stretch of the imagination.
Not new, but it is the current state of the art. SMS is the polar opposite.
SMS was invented in 1992, email was invented in 1972.
How does that compute that SMS is not more modern than email?
By not being a factor
SMS is a legacy tech, it's been superseded by loads of things that are converged. Anything non-converged is legacy, period. Email, while older in some senses, remains the state of the art for what it does, literally nothing competes with it. So by being state of the art, rather than a legacy tech, it's more modern.
How does nothing compete against it? Slack/Discord/Teams all compete with it - all have free versions.
If you're going to say the disjoined nature of email is what makes it unique, then I'm going to say the same thing about SMS - it's totally disjointed, each carrier provides it's own connections for it's users, but allows for an interconnect between systems, like DNS allows interconnect between email servers.. .
-
@Dashrender said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
this is made worse by the fact that your kids are constantly bouncing from one service to the next, hardly ever to be tracked, etc..
But my kids can have those things, they can't have SMS... because they don't have phone service. So it's not a lowest common denominator because it's not free. It requires expensive service, and expensive devices. It's an "elitist" hipster throwback tech. Most of us are affluent enough that we start to forget that half of America can't afford to have reliable SMS. But in the real world, people working blue collar service jobs often struggle to make SMS actually viable, but they are forced to use it through market trickery.
-
@Dashrender said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
How does nothing compete against it? Slack/Discord/Teams all compete with it - all have free versions.
None of those are universal and non-siloed like email. None of them are in the same ballpark. They are better than SMS, but not on par with email.
-
@Dashrender said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
If you're going to say the disjoined nature of email is what makes it unique, then I'm going to say the same thing about SMS - it's totally disjointed, each carrier provides it's own connections for it's users, but allows for an interconnect between systems, like DNS allows interconnect between email servers.. .
Except the carriers OWN them, in silos. Email is not like that. You are misunderstanding the nature of the two things. Email uses the Internet to connect people, it is converged. SMS requires non-Internet connections between silos. At no point does it enter the converged, public domain.
Not even close to being the same.
Until you can run your own private SMS server, have no phone carrier, and know that it can reach everyone else with SMS and they can reach you, for free... you have no point to make. Free, open, public, converged. Show me another tech that comes close. SMS is the farthest on every point.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
@Dashrender said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
this is made worse by the fact that your kids are constantly bouncing from one service to the next, hardly ever to be tracked, etc..
But my kids can have those things, they can't have SMS... because they don't have phone service. So it's not a lowest common denominator because it's not free. It requires expensive service, and expensive devices. It's an "elitist" hipster throwback tech. Most of us are affluent enough that we start to forget that half of America can't afford to have reliable SMS. But in the real world, people working blue collar service jobs often struggle to make SMS actually viable, but they are forced to use it through market trickery.
OK - I've been slightly swayed...
Sadly many chat programs still rely on phone numbers as their verification solution, so they are killing themselves by this legacy issue.
I agree that we need to get away from phone numbers, but even in developing countries - I'm hearing that they are solving connectivity issues via SMS and dumb phone solutions, not 'high tech' chat apps, etc. because the 3rd world has mainly flip phones or candybar phones, not smartphones, and definitely not computers (think typical laptop).
-
@scottalanmiller said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
@Dashrender said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
If you're going to say the disjoined nature of email is what makes it unique, then I'm going to say the same thing about SMS - it's totally disjointed, each carrier provides it's own connections for it's users, but allows for an interconnect between systems, like DNS allows interconnect between email servers.. .
Except the carriers OWN them, in silos. Email is not like that. You are misunderstanding the nature of the two things. Email uses the Internet to connect people, it is converged. SMS requires non-Internet connections between silos. At no point does it enter the converged, public domain.
Not even close to being the same.
Until you can run your own private SMS server, have no phone carrier, and know that it can reach everyone else with SMS and they can reach you, for free... you have no point to make. Free, open, public, converged. Show me another tech that comes close. SMS is the farthest on every point.
No chat solution has that either though.
-
@Dashrender said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
@scottalanmiller said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
@Dashrender said in Rant: I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.:
If you're going to say the disjoined nature of email is what makes it unique, then I'm going to say the same thing about SMS - it's totally disjointed, each carrier provides it's own connections for it's users, but allows for an interconnect between systems, like DNS allows interconnect between email servers.. .
Except the carriers OWN them, in silos. Email is not like that. You are misunderstanding the nature of the two things. Email uses the Internet to connect people, it is converged. SMS requires non-Internet connections between silos. At no point does it enter the converged, public domain.
Not even close to being the same.
Until you can run your own private SMS server, have no phone carrier, and know that it can reach everyone else with SMS and they can reach you, for free... you have no point to make. Free, open, public, converged. Show me another tech that comes close. SMS is the farthest on every point.
No chat solution has that either though.
I didn't argue that they did (except one does, I just didn't point it out.) My point is that email is the lowest common denominator and the only modern technology of its type. And my second point was that modern instant messaging was superior to SMS - not because they are perfect, but because they improve on SMS with SMS having no actual benefits.
However, XMPP actually does fix the problems. It covers all SMS basis, while also being free, open, converged, etc.
