Sort of interesting that google and facebook are trying (or have tried) to rethink our messaging concepts. Are they trying to fix something that isn't broken? Sometimes I think it needs work but it seems like they are trying whole new ideas that may or may not work.
The nice part of the new Facebook messages product is that it isn't a standalone or competing messaging product, unlike many other products you are alluding too. It unifies SMS, email, and IM, and it interoperates with all of them. So if your friend emails you, you can reply by SMS or by IM, and they will receive it back in their email inbox. Likewise, if your friend is online when you email them, it will pop up like an IM, so they can reply in real-time.
I think this type of product has been a growing need for people for a while. Literally every single one of my younger cousins only uses SMS and IM to communicate and every single one of my older relatives uses only email, so you end up having to choose a communication protocol based on recipient rather than just choosing a person and composing a message.
It still has a number of quirks, but I personally think this is a really nice product. (I am admittedly biased, but I am being honest.)
Email is like the horse and cart now, and these attempted solutions are the cars. Just because something isn't broken doesn't mean it can't be improved.
That being said, you ask if they are trying to fix something that isn't broken. But, if you look at what they are trying to solve, it very much is broken. Email, forums, messages, comments, blog posts, SMS, etc. Communication online is disjointed and broken. A single system that can pull it all together would do a lot. It's why I was/am so hopeful about Wave.
Email, SMS, blog posts, forums, comments here on HN: All are exactly the same thing at the core. They are all text. Some might allow images or other media. Some might allow attachments.
But they are all essentially the same: all elements of a conversation or content. The only difference between them is how they are created or displayed, and that's a UI feature.
You're probably making the mistake of assuming that things would have to change in your use of SMS, blog posts, forums, comments or YouTube videos to utilize a single system. That's not the case. The benefit isn't that it changes the way you do things, but that you can do more than what you do now.
> " The only difference between them is how they are created or displayed, and that's a UI feature."
That's incorrect IMHO. It's also completely different how people use them.
If I want to ask my wife to get something extra from the shops, I won't email her. I'll SMS.
Each medium carries with it 'urgency', whether you expect a response now or in the future, whether it's open for discussion in a group, etc etc
These things didn't just come about by chance, they came about because users want several different methods of communication depending on what they want to say, and their expectations regarding response/discussion etc
It's like saying that the internet will make books obsolete. They serve completely different purposes.
To an engineer SMS/email/forums etc may be the same. But socially they're completely different.
> That's incorrect IMHO. It's also completely different how people use them.
It's not. You're just confusing what it is with what it does. A car and a 18-wheeler have a completely different purpose, but they are both vehicles. They both operate on the same basic principles (driving on roads).
Edit: I just want to clarify. What I'm saying is that they are the same at the base level. Their are difference, but at the core, what they are, are the same. How people use something is at a higher level.
> If I want to ask my wife to get something extra from the shops, I won't email her. I'll SMS.
But you aren't actually SMS'sing. You're using an application that handles the message protocol for you and it get's the message to your wife. Intent and purpose are not important in terms of centralizing real-time messaging.
Basically, you fall into a trap: you make the assumption that anything you know now needs to change. A service like what Wave or Facebook are trying to do wouldn't supplant what you are doing. You'll still SMS your wife. However, you'll also be able to "email" your wife, who will get it as an "SMS".
Each medium carries with it it's own urgency, but each medium is also beholden to it's UI. Their is nothing special about email or SMS or comments or messages other than context, and context is not defined by the content.
I'm probably doing a piss poor job explaining this. But the problem is real, and the solution has a LOT of potential if done correctly. People just have a hard time differentiating form from function.
I think Facebook is going to solve this by slowly demonstrating all of this over the long term. You'll see them implementing the system into things people already know. Essentially, you'll still SMS like you always do, but the backend will have additional tools that centralize content without you doing anything different.
According to the video on their blog post, their team thinks it's somewhat broken that you have to keep a mental lookup table in your head of the contacts in your life and the best way to reach them - who you should send a SMS to in order to get their attention, who you should email, who you should send a Facebook message, etc. They want to provide an easier and unified face for personal messaging.
Outlook brought us: ubiquitous top posting, lack of signature delimiters, ubiquitous email-as-microsoft-word-documents, multi-megabyte email threads where every new email includes every previous email, and viruworms.
It's not really a "and then Gmail came along" issue either. My numbers from yesterday (about 250k messages total):
I see numbers like this often and they make me wonder how active these various users are. I have a few old hotmail accounts and a couple old yahoo accounts.. 3 of which I know are still active... But I check those addresses annually and they mostly exist to handle my spam.
Is Yahoo's 40% active people? When was the last time they checked their email? Do those people check their email via pop? What is the volume of useful communications for the users of these various systems.
Do your numbers above represent addresses you've collected or just a rehash of the general numbers on the topic? Is there any way to get more fine grained details about these various suer groups?
Ehh, I don't know. I think just as many, if not more, were using Hotmail/Yahoo Mail, or their ISP's webmail service. And in those cases, email was definitely broken. Stingy mailbox quotas (25 MB!), shitty ads, cluttered UX, on and on.
