Slashdot Mirror


The Balkanization of Chatting

JThaddeus writes "Slashdot's own (or former) CmdrTaco has a posting on the Washington Post's website where he discusses how chat apps have overtaken SMS. Yeah, they are cheap. There's no telecom fee per message or for some number of messages per month. However 'The problem of course is that these systems are annoyingly incompatible with each other. My phone can buzz with chat notifications from 3 different apps at any moment. My desktop has even more scattered across browser tabs and standalone apps.' Ditto, nor do I want to hassle learning some app or trying to understand its who's-listening settings. I'll stick to email and to occasional SMS."

18 of 242 comments (clear)

  1. Come back by Zerth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IRC still loves you.

    1. Re:Come back by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Informative

      IRC is in fact still a robust system for talking to people by text. Data organized into relevant streams called channels, with mechanisms for self-policing built in. There's a lot of modernity to, say, skype, but fundamentally, IRC has all the basic mechanisms done well in an open way. But unlike these services, IRC is automatically balkanized, not only do your friends have to use the same technology, they have to use the same IRC networks.

    2. Re:Come back by Infiniti2000 · · Score: 3, Funny

      You must be out of your Balkan mind.

  2. vulcanization of chatting apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ....fascinating. (arches eyebrow)

    1. Re:vulcanization of chatting apps by hardill · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm sure rubber covered chat is called something else....

  3. Didn't Trillian do this? by trazom28 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Back in the pre-SMS days, http://www.trillian.im/ Trillian did this nicely. You would think there would be an app to combine all as well. Couldn't be that hard if it's been done once before.

    --
    {} ------ When I think of a good sig, I'll put it here
    1. Re:Didn't Trillian do this? by Tog+Klim · · Score: 5, Informative

      pidgin does it everywhere for free, and it can do SMS via AOL.

    2. Re:Didn't Trillian do this? by tgd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "everywhere" is a bit of a stretch. Pidgin doesn't support any of the most popular networks: whatsapp, bbm, ...

      Facebook: 1b users
      Skype: 700m users
      MSN: 500m users
      etc ...

      I don't think "most" means what you think it means.

    3. Re:Didn't Trillian do this? by ilsaloving · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean like XMPP, which is an official chatting protocol that allows for virtually every method of communication currently in use today?

      Google Talk uses that, but nobody else does, because all these companies like having total control of their messaging networks and have no business interest in playing nice with others.

    4. Re:Didn't Trillian do this? by ottothecow · · Score: 3, Insightful
      He clearly was referring to the sms-replacement systems. Yes, people talk on facebook chat from phones, but its not the same as whatsapp, bbm, imessage, etc.

      Honestly, I think imessage is something apple has mostly done right. You go to compose an SMS and it detects if the recipient has a compatible device. If so, it sends it as a data packet through imessage; if not, it sends an SMS. The thing that they have done stupidly wrong is that all mutli-recipient messages coming from an iphone are sent as an MMS (picture message, even if it is only text) rather than a standard SMS text message. If you have any friends who don't use smart phones, have a carrier that charges 2-5x as much for MMS as SMS (50c vs 10c), or use google voice, this is fucking terrible.

      Old phones are quite slow to open these messages. Android phones don't even show a preview of the text (since MMS mesages can carry a subject line which is displayed with the notification). Google Voice users on any platform can't receive MMS messages so they just completely miss your text. Anyone who pays per message could end up wasting a lot of money to read your text since not all carriers include picture messages in their standard texting plans. All of this so people can see a list of recipients and reply-all? Reply-all sucks most of the time and if you really want to do this, why not just email everyone...if they are receiving it and responding, they probably have a smartphone with email anyways.

      --
      Bottles.
  4. Ob. XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
  5. Not just chatting. Forum discussions suffer, too. by mfarah · · Score: 4, Informative

    Back in the day, there was *one* discussion forum: Usenet. It was everywhere, and all servers connected to it. Now, there are *thousands* of disconnected forums, dozens of "forum software packages", etcetera. Even systems that try to connect distinct forums (Disqus) aren't necessarily the most popular option.

    --
    "Trust me - I know what I'm doing."
    - Sledge Hammer
  6. This is new? by Fishchip · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Jabber, ICQ, AIM, MSN Messenger, Yahoo Chat, IRC, entire websites devoted to nothing but realtime chat... did I see more of a problem back in the 90's than there actually was and now it really is a soul-destroying issue in 2013? Or is this just rehashing 15-year-old+ news?

  7. XMPP? by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No?

  8. Re:"Cheap?" Who's still paying for chat apps? by wagnerrp · · Score: 4, Informative

    Infinite bucks per GB? SMS messages don't use bandwidth or data. They get carried in what is otherwise wasted padding in heartbeat packets. That's why they have a limited character length.

  9. Re:How to monetize an open standard. by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For sending text messages. Do you want to have ads? Do you want your chats monitored and your data sold? Do you want to pay a monthly, weekly per message fee for your messages that you send? A government who will offer the service for free, you pay for it in taxes.

    For standard SMS text messages they get somehow added to your phone bill, I personally think they should be a LOT CHEAPER. But you do get a common protocol, because everyone else is doing it.

    The other texting methods are incompatible with each other because they all have different rules on how they are funded and supported. The monetary gain must be related to the volume of the texting.

    really then how come email does not suffer the same problem? It works on all platforms has free services that all work together, and has free clients with no adds. what is the difference here?

    --
    ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  10. Why I use SMS by houghi · · Score: 3, Informative

    The reason I use SMS and hope to use for a LONG time are the following:
    1) No data plan needed. This means I am not tempted to go online all the time. So I just used a pre-payed card. Last top-up was 28/02 for 25 EUR. Still 15 EUR available
    2) I can use it with the many people who do not have a smart phone. It just works.
    3) Smart messaging. This means if I want to chit-chat, I SMS them where we can meet, we meet, have a few drinks and have an actual personal relationship.
    4) Because it costs the other person to send something back, they don't send useless messages and most of the time just a message where we can meet.

    And if smsing is not an option, you could, you know, use the device to, well telephone the other person and speak to them.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  11. Re:How to monetize an open standard. by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    really then how come email does not suffer the same problem? It works on all platforms has free services that all work together, and has free clients with no adds. what is the difference here?

    The difference is that the email system was created before the internet was monetized, and the current chat systems except for irc were all created afterwards.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"