Why Do People Still Text
-
@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.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@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
LOL OK the day is done, we've wrapped back to the beginning
-
@Dashrender said:
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.WiFi calling is about the best thing ever. Reason why is because effectively every permanent location you deal with (like work and home) now have rock solid calling. For many of us, no carrier offered that everywhere. WiFi calling gives you the power to put calling where you need it and frees you from the limitations of any individual carrier.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@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.
Clearly this hasn't been a problem, otherwise people would be complaining to their carriers and they would find a better solution.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@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.
What's wrong with paging?
Just because email was invented doesn't mean it should replace it. That's like saying IRC should be replace with forums. Two different forms of communication and different purposes.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
What's wrong with paging?
Just because email was invented doesn't mean it should replace it. That's like saying IRC should be replace with forums. Two different forms of communication and different purposes.
I keep saying that we should still have paging... for paging functions.
Two different things for two different purposes is my point exactly. Use paging for paging purposes (emergencies or alerts) and IM/Email or whatever for normal communications. You've just repeated what I thought was my whole point. Don't try to mash email and/or IM functions into paging, keep paging pure for paging purposes.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
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.WiFi calling is about the best thing ever. Reason why is because effectively every permanent location you deal with (like work and home) now have rock solid calling. For many of us, no carrier offered that everywhere. WiFi calling gives you the power to put calling where you need it and frees you from the limitations of any individual carrier.
So then you just have a portable VoIP phone. Especially since around here that's the only way you'd get coverage with them.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@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?
because you need 100% brain dead simple guaranteed compatibility to whom you're sending a message to.
I know you keep saying you're not saying to replace with email, but you do have to pick a single, one, uno consolidated platform that everyone will content to for ubiquitous access.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@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.
Clearly this hasn't been a problem, otherwise people would be complaining to their carriers and they would find a better solution.
Why, anyone who understands the limitations knows that the problem was solved before it arrived. We have email for people who care. That's like complaining that your boat doesn't drive well on the highway. No matter how much you complain, no one is going to turn their boats into cars, you can already buy a car for that. If people keep trying to drive boats on roads.... that's not the boat maker's problem.
-
@Dashrender said:
I know you keep saying you're not saying to replace with email, but you do have to pick a single, one, uno consolidated platform that everyone will content to for ubiquitous access.
Well, here is the thing... that's one of my pro-email arguments. Email is universal. SMS is pretty universal, but not to the same level. Right now, no one is picking just one. So I don't think that "having to" holds up. Clearly we don't have to. We had one that was universal and people chose to splinter. Maybe the underlying problem is the idea that we should have only one. Even though having many is horrible.
But ubiquity doesn't exist today. Lots of people don't have email. Lots of people don't have SMS. Lots of people have a little access to one or the other or both.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
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.WiFi calling is about the best thing ever. Reason why is because effectively every permanent location you deal with (like work and home) now have rock solid calling. For many of us, no carrier offered that everywhere. WiFi calling gives you the power to put calling where you need it and frees you from the limitations of any individual carrier.
OK that makes sense, but then I have to ask.. do you really need a cell phone for that? Why not a Wifi phone at those locations with an Asterisk PBX sending your calls to you? I bet that can be done for less than the cost of the monthly wireless carrier - even if you have to pay hosting fees in a DC.
I want a cell phone less for those locations and more for when I'm out and about.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I know you keep saying you're not saying to replace with email, but you do have to pick a single, one, uno consolidated platform that everyone will content to for ubiquitous access.
Well, here is the thing... that's one of my pro-email arguments. Email is universal. SMS is pretty universal, but not to the same level. Right now, no one is picking just one. So I don't think that "having to" holds up. Clearly we don't have to. We had one that was universal and people chose to splinter. Maybe the underlying problem is the idea that we should have only one. Even though having many is horrible.
But ubiquity doesn't exist today. Lots of people don't have email. Lots of people don't have SMS. Lots of people have a little access to one or the other or both.
He wasn't talking about them being ubiquitous across communication types. He's taking about the fact with IM you have to find out which IM network they are on, then what their ID is etc. with SMS all you need is their phone number.
