Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Balkanization of Chatting

Posted by Unknown on from the just-use-xmpp dept.

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."

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

    ....fascinating. (arches eyebrow)

  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 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. 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
  5. 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?

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

    No?

  7. 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.