Skip to main content

Messaging Has Some Way To Go Before It Replaces Email and SMS

Facebook Messenger has over 200m users, Wechat has over 400m, WhatsApp has over half a billion and Skype nearly a billion. With all the coverage given to these messaging services, plus the dozens more that arrive every month, it's easy to believe the hype that email is dead and SMS has been replaced.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The problem with each of those messaging services is that they can't talk to each other. Or more accurately, they could but they won't. Which means before you can start messaging someone, you need to know what network they're uisng and be on it yourself. Unless you have a small, or very pliable group of friends you're going to end up installing multiple messaging apps to keep in contact with them all.

In contrast SMS and email are both ubiquitous and completely cross compatible. To SMS another user you need only know their phone number. To send someone an email you just need their email address. This lowest common denominator model may have some drawbacks, but it beats the proprietary, walled gardens being deployed by these newer services.

The promise of interoperability has been dangled in front of messaging users since the days when services like Yahoo, MSN, ICQ and IRC were the big players. That nobody has managed to find a common standard to allow services to cross talk is an indictment of the 'profit before all' model which pervades the modern app based development society.

Unlikely as it seems, the only possible resolution to this problem would be the adoption of a standard by Google, Microsoft and Apple to allow Hangouts, Skype and iChat users to talk to each other and offer gateway access to any other service that is prepared to play by the rules. Failing that we'll continue to see Messaging environment which does a poor job of meeting users needs.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

F1: Robert Kubica Impresses In Renault Test Run

The car may be old but its the performance of the driver that's the story here. Robert Kubica returned to F1, after a fashion, earlier this week with an extensive test run in a 2012 Lotus Renault F1 car at Valencia.
The age of the car and the circuit were likely determined by F1's current rules which ban testing, but the reason for Kubica being in the car is far more interesting. Considered by many to be a potential World Champion and certainly one of the fastest drivers of his generation, Kubica's F1 career seemed to be over after a 2011 crash whilst driving in the Rally of Andora. His Skoda Fabia was penetrated by a guardrail in the high speed accident partially severing his right arm.
Up until last year Kubica has been competing in rallying, with the expectation that the limited movement in his repaired arm would prohibit a return to single seater racing.
So this week's test is both interesting and confusing. Interesting because Kubica completed 115 laps of the ret…

F1: Robert Kubica's Williams Test Asks More Questions Than It Answers

Comparing driver's times at a tyre evaluation test like last week's Abu Dhabi event is difficult at the best of times, but when trying to assess the performance of a driver who has been out of the sport for six years, that difficulty level is raised even higher.
On the face of it Robert Kubica's test for Williams was a success. Fastest of the three Williams drivers present the headlines look promising. However, taking into consideration the different tyres used to set those times muddies the water considerably.
Kubica ran a three lap qualifying simulation on the new 'hyper-soft' tyre - which should have given him a two-second advantage. Correcting for tyres it would appear that Kubica was significantly slower than Sergei Sorotkin - who was on the harder 'soft' tyre - and marginally quicker than Lance Stroll, the team's only contracted driver.

Stroll's family fortune currently funds Williams, so there' no chance that he will be anywhere but in a…

Panos Panay's Defence Of Microsoft Surface Hardware Sounds Eerily Familiar

This weekend I went out with my ten year old daughter to select a laptop for her school year beginning in January. The schools requirements are quite specific, requiring a Windows 10 device, with a preference for a touchscreen and a stylus. She chose a Surface Pro, after trying a large number of different options. Having seen the way I use my own Surface Pro - and tried it herself there was only ever going to be two options - and the other was a Surface Laptop.
I tell you this so that you understand I am a buyer of Microsoft's products through choice, not compulsion. I'm on my third Surface device now. 
So when Panos Panay dismissed reports of the death of the Surface hardware line, I was very interested to see exactly how strong these denials were. Especially how they reflect what has gone before. To whit: Windows 10 Mobile.
Panay claimed that Microsoft is in hardware for the long haul. Almost exactly mirroring the words of Terry Myerson, when he claimed Windows Mobile was g…