Slashdot Mirror


Are Phone Numbers Doomed To Die? (fortune.com)

HughPickens.com writes: Valentina Zarya writes at Fortune Magazine that the top 2016 prediction for David Marcus, Facebook's vice president of messaging products, is the disappearance of the phone number and its replacement by applications like Facebook's Messenger. " You can make video and voice calls while at the same time not needing to know someone's phone number," writes Marcus. "You don't need to have a Facebook account to use Messenger anymore, and it's also a cross platform experience – so you can pick up where you left off whether you're on a desktop computer, a tablet, or your phone." Jonah Berger, Wharton professor and author of "Contagious: Why Things Catch On" agrees. "For most of us, I think it's really hard to actually remember what someone's phone number actually is. We use our phones so often or we click on a button that has it. But if there was a test where you had to say, do you remember your best friends number or could you type in your best friend's number I think most of us would fail."

But not everyone agrees that Marcus' predictions are objective and disinterested. "It's all very well the company wanting to be the de facto Internet — especially in places like India. But drier minds and eyes might wonder whether the wish to eradicate phone numbers has something to do with not everyone having yet given Facebook their phone numbers," says Chris Matyszczyk. "It may well be that phone numbers will disappear. Some, though, might wonder how making their disappearance a company theme squares with what Marcus claims is the ultimate goal: 'It's all about delight.' This one's easy. It's all about delighting Facebook."

49 of 289 comments (clear)

  1. I can see this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But I hope the "database" isn't Facebook. I would hope it would be something like DNS/Bind in the IP world....

    1. Re:I can see this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Facebook boss says people will flock to Facebook. Who'd thunk it?

    2. Re:I can see this by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would love it to be ip addresses, but I want cellphones to be forced to allow me to do address blocks and wildcard blocking.

      The fact that I cant on my cellphone put in 1800* to block every single 800 number from calling my phone is stupid. the phones can do it, why the hell doesnt google bake this into the damn os?

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:I can see this by JonahsDad · · Score: 5, Informative

      The fact that I cant on my cellphone put in 1800* to block every single 800 number from calling my phone is stupid. the phones can do it, why the hell doesnt google bake this into the damn os?

      Cyanogenmod. Enable wildcards.
      1800.*

    4. Re:I can see this by darkain · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly this! Plus, I'm wondering what the "Facebook" form of calling my local bank would be, or the pizza place down the street to order some dinner, or how about the equivalent of 911? A big part of phone numbers is the decentralized yet cross-compatible networks. Instant messaging services where starting to go this way a decade ago with Jabber, then Facebook and Google decided all of a sudden that this was somehow a BAD idea?

    5. Re:I can see this by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Informative

      why the hell doesnt google bake this into the damn os?

      Because Google is an advertising company, and denying access to their partners would be like cutting their nose off.

      Since I remember numbers better than names, I say lets abolish naming your kid, and just buy him/her a SIM card.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:I can see this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      They're ramping up their Facebook advertising in order to help offset the huge flop that Oculus Rift will be.

    7. Re:I can see this by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Worse.

      "Ok... I got facebook, skype and AIM. You got any of those?"
      "Wow, you're old. Nope, don't use those. I got Whatsapp and telegraph. You good for any of those?"
      "Nope. Hang on... how about kik? Not used that in a while."
      "Kik, no. Really, you should just up... oh, hang on. I think I have ICQ from back in the day. Don't know if it still works, got that one?"
      "Not any more. Look, how about we just swap phone numbers?"

    8. Re:I can see this by brewthatistrue · · Score: 2

      Grandcentral R.I.P.

      http://www.lylebackenroth.com/...

      Google acquired them and has done next to no improvements. Off the top of my head, the only change I can think of is that they removed the ability to record calls placed by you while notifying both parties.

    9. Re:I can see this by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Because Google is an advertising company, and denying access to their partners would be like cutting their nose off.

      That makes no sense. Google is not making money from spam calls. The spammers are bypassing Google, so it would be to Google's advantage to help block them.

    10. Re:I can see this by unixisc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Plenty of people - even people w/ computers and phones - have stayed away from Facebook, Twitter, Google+, et al. Why would any of THOSE be a universal contact mechanism?

    11. Re:I can see this by tehcyder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fact that I cant on my cellphone put in 1800* to block every single 800 number from calling my phone is stupid. the phones can do it, why the hell doesnt google bake this into the damn os?

      Cyanogenmod. Enable wildcards. 1800.*

      Are you some sort of terrorist?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  2. Wishful thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I bet Facebook would think twice about wanting to replace phone numbers with Facebook IDs when they see the regulations common carriers operate under.

  3. Nonsense by gweihir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Quite a few people are not on Facebook, Twitter, etc. It would also be _hugely_ unprofessional to do any job-related communication over such a venue.

    This is just the usual bullshit from people that get starry-eyes when fantasizing how the future will be, but have no clue how reality actually works. Basically the only old global communication channel that has vanished is the telegram. And there are services in many countries that will print out an email and deliver it to the target address for a fee. So, really, complete nonsense.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Nonsense by tepples · · Score: 2

      I just did an interview over google hangouts, w/o a phone number.

      Then how'd you get a Google account with which to use Hangouts? Or, like me, do you get in early enough before Google started requiring new users to provide a mobile phone number to act as an additional means of account recovery and as a means of increasing spammers' cost to sign up?

    2. Re:Nonsense by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Facebook is in the business of selling Facebook.

      That this idiot is saying stupid shit is just a symptom of that.

      In general, I find pundits and futurists to be full of shit. In the specific, this man is saying stuff so monumentally stupid as to defy belief.

      Sorry, Facebook, you're not going to displace a hundred years of telephone just because you have a fucking app.

      I'd throw Zuckerfuck off a bridge before I'd use his crap for my telephone.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re: Nonsense by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2

      Hangouts works just fine in Linux.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    4. Re: Nonsense by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2

      And AC would still be wrong. I just created a new account and didn't provide a phone number. It asks for one during registration and encourages its use for account recovery purposes, but does not require one and doesn't require anything other than tabbing through the field or clicking elsewhere.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  4. Did IP numbers disappear? by Teun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Did IP numbers disappear?

    Behind the comms there will still be numbers or codes to lead to the address.
    I'd be damned to use Facebook's spying services when I don't even have to log in or go to a specific site or app to press a pre-set button and make a call.
    Or simply scan through my address book, click on the name and talk.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  5. we need a public utility by j2.718ff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Telephone service is a public utility, and as such has a variety of regulations, including on how pricing works, and where service is provided. If it is to be replaced, we need some other sort of public utility that can be used for communications.

    1. Re:we need a public utility by HuskyDog · · Score: 2

      At the end of the day, people don't want this sort of regulatory protection even if it genuinely is done entirely for the benefit of consumers.

      Here in the UK we went through a great deal of regulatory pain over the last 30 years to go from a single state run monopoly in the shape of Post Office Telephones (yes, I am old enough to remember them), who wouldn't even let you buy your physical telephone from anyone else, let alone the telephone service, to the current state where although British Telecom run most of the lines and exchanges you can actually buy your phone service from a range of suppliers (including the cable company). Bizarrely, this has resulted in my father buying his phone service from the Post Office!

      Meanwhile, the great unwashed just want 'shiny shiny' and happily use entirely proprietary and closed communications systems like Skype and WhatsApp. When I explain to friends and colleagues that I am not prepared to communicate with them via proprietary communications systems, but am happy to use the phone, SMS or email they just look at me like I am a bit crazy (they may be correct) and go on about "How convenient" they are.

      Conclusion: Expending political effort on telecommunications regulation isn't worth it. Just let a few companies gain a monopoly, charge what they like and provide whatever level of service they want and only a few weirdos like me will even notice.

    2. Re:we need a public utility by tepples · · Score: 2

      You can get e-mail, but not phone, at a public library.

    3. Re:we need a public utility by j2.718ff · · Score: 2

      And emails and messaging is already cheaper and available in more locations. I can send an email for free, telephone service costs like 60 dollars a month minimum

      Really? I've known people who live in very rural areas. In such areas, the options for internet access are generally limited to satellite and dial-up. However, as long as there's electricity, phone service is available too.

      Also, I have no idea where you get your pricing figures. I pay $30/month for my cell phone service. I don't have a landline, but I imagine if I wanted to get one, it would be a similar price. $60/month sounds more on-par with what I pay for cable internet service.

    4. Re:we need a public utility by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 2

      Telephone service is a public utility, and as such has a variety of regulations, including on how pricing works, and where service is provided. If it is to be replaced, we need some other sort of public utility that can be used for communications.

      And most importantly who can listen in on your communications. As much as govt shits me, as least we can vote them out, what happens when a corporation has that power?

  6. Phone Numbers by ADRA · · Score: 5, Insightful

    - Universally Ubiquitous
    - Nationalized
    - Lowest Common Denominator
    - (for POTS anyway) Pretty damn rock solid in most of the world

    Did Facebook kill Email? No.
    Did Google kill the address bar? No.
    Did Apple kill the PC? No.
    Did solar panels (insert any other energy technology) kill the grid? No.
    Will Facebook messenger (or any company-centric IM system) kill telephones? No.

    Next flamebait topic please.

    --
    Bye!
    1. Re:Phone Numbers by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 5, Funny

      - Universally Ubiquitous
      - Nationalized
      - Lowest Common Denominator
      - (for POTS anyway) Pretty damn rock solid in most of the world

      Did Facebook kill Email? No.
      Did Google kill the address bar? No.
      Did Apple kill the PC? No.
      Did solar panels (insert any other energy technology) kill the grid? No.
      Will Facebook messenger (or any company-centric IM system) kill telephones? No.

      Next flamebait topic please.

      Yes, but video killed the radio star....

  7. Not Disappearing Any Time Soon by Koreantoast · · Score: 2

    Phone numbers are the defacto, common and relatively stable identifier that most people possess today. Yes, it may be archaic, but most people are comfortable with it, a global, relatively neutral means of communication. It's neutrality is protected by a patchwork of government regulations worldwide, and until one single company, alliance of companies, or single open standard becomes globally adopted at the same level as the phone number, Facebook or anyone else isn't going to replace it. While I'm sure Facebook dreams of usurping that role, their penetration isn't nearly global enough to provide the scale to challenge it. Now, if they created alliances with the Tencents of the world for a unified standard, maybe, but we're a long, long way from that.

    1. Re:Not Disappearing Any Time Soon by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Phone numbers are the defacto, common and relatively stable identifier that most people possess today.

      Which, ironically, is exactly why Facebook wants to know yours.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Not Disappearing Any Time Soon by mjwx · · Score: 2

      Phone numbers are the defacto, common and relatively stable identifier that most people possess today. Yes, it may be archaic, but most people are comfortable with it, a global, relatively neutral means of communication.

      Not to mention globally unique within a nation. Imagine trying to do that with names.

      Frank: Hey John, what's your ID?
      John: John.smith.
      Frank: I've got 2239 John Smiths.
      John: John Smith from Idaho.
      Frank: That's narrowed it down to 147.
      John: Try John F Smith.
      v Frank: Still got 32.
      John: OK, let me try to message you... There's 243 Frank Blogs in this state alone, which one are you.

      Isn't it much easier to say.

      Frank: Hey John, what's your number
      John: Give me a moment to look it up, I can never remember it... 063-732-0898.
      As someone with common first name but an uncommon surname, I find it near impossible to get it as a username on any large national (Australian) bank, let alone on something like Gmail (fortunately I signed up shortly after public sign ups were permitted and got it).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  8. Possible reasons by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is a need for a universal identifier standard for recipients and communication of some kind. A proprietary one is not acceptable, in the least because tech companies come and go like pop stars.

    A new standard would only replace phone numbers if it offers something significantly better. Standards are rarely displaced by something just a little bit better. It's why QWERTY keyboards and SQL (as a language) are still common.

    A communication ID standard that offers letters and longer identifiers may be competitive, but there's nobody pushing such in a non-proprietary way. (Phone numbers can also spell out short mnemonics, but in an awkward way.)

    The phone system could morph into such because an existing phone number could still be a valid identifier within the new standard, somewhat like how UNICODE still contains ASCII.

    1. Re:Possible reasons by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      rough equivalent of a machine-generated Google mail address. BobMa1283.

      Unlike email addresses, because one would have to pay to keep them*, they should not have bloated name-spaces.

      For example, I estimate there are roughly 500 Martha Stewart's in the world. If you don't pay to keep your ID, then it expires and can be used by another Martha Stewart after a grace period.

      Thus, you may see many ID's similar to MarthaStewart473, but there should not be many like MarthaStewart473807. Plus, many may opt to use a number instead of their name.

      A lot of email accounts are junk accounts and spammer zombie accounts. (I myself have junk accounts.) Phone numbers and perhaps their future replacement are more formal and fee-based, and thus should have fewer trivial accounts.

      * Subsidies for the poor may result in free accounts being given out, but it probably would be limited to 2 per person: a name-based one for resume's etc., and a digit-only or random-ish one for privacy-oriented uses.

    2. Re:Possible reasons by Wraithlyn · · Score: 2

      It's already pretty much happened (proprietary concerns notwithstanding) with email addresses.

      Email addresses have largely become a defacto standard for login usernames.

      It's pretty easy to envision a near future where someone "calls your email", and it transparently maps to the phone # you have registered for that address. In fact that's already essentially how it works in certain applications (eg, Skype and iMessage).

      And to your point, an email address certainly isn't guaranteed to be "lifetime permanent", but for practical purposes it's generally "permanent enough".

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
  9. Facebook will go first by mbone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hereby predict that Facebook will disappear before phone numbers.

    Let's come back in 20 years and compare my track record with David Marcus's.

  10. I Am All For It! by JimSadler · · Score: 2

    Getting rid of phone numbers could get rid of bullshit phone sales people or so-called telemarketers, nonsense charities, and bill collectors. Since I uusally get several annoying such calls, every day, I think getting rid of phone numbers is a great idea.

  11. Sure, online address books are nice... by lamber45 · · Score: 2

    but there are actually a few phone numbers that I remember, and can type on a telephone keypad (or the numbers-only widget on a smartphone) quicker than I can look them up (even with type-ahead on the person's name). They're also harder make data-entry errors with than a written-out e-mail address, or, worse, someone's Facebook or Google+ name.

  12. Facebook Messenger will die before phone numbers by QuietLagoon · · Score: 2

    I would say you heard it here first, but I would be surprised if it weren't posted already. :)

  13. I pay one-eighth of that by tepples · · Score: 2

    telephone service costs like 60 dollars a month minimum

    I don't know where you're getting that figure, as I get telephone service from Virgin Mobile USA for $90 per year.

  14. Re:Nope by danbob999 · · Score: 2

    Yeah but it can be just like an IP address. You don't remember it or use it directly. It can also change from time to time, and you can have more than one.
    I want to contact a person, not a phone. I don't care if that person answers from a phone on a 4G cellular network, or computer on a wired network. Therefore, I couldn't care less about the MSISDN.

    The best identifier right now is the email address. It is unique, cross-platform, standardized, free and vendor-neutral. Unlike phone numbers and Facebook.

  15. nonsense. by swschrad · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "phone numbers" are how the switching -- and billing -- are done for landlines, cell phones, and for many data services like DSL.

    they are not going away. he can hide his, but he can't change everybody elses.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:nonsense. by _133MHz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Naked-line DSL still has a (non-working) phone number attached to it.

    2. Re:nonsense. by penguinoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm willing to bet that Valentina Zarya, David Marcus, and Facebook all have phone numbers which they don't plan to replace with applications like Facebook's Messenger.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  16. Re:Not Facebook by rasmusbr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Phone numbers are going to die. But Facebook isn't the answer. Any proprietary solution isn't the answer.

    It's especially not going to happen outside of the US. Imagine the president of Russia ordering military maneuvers using Facebook Messenger. Not going to happen.

    It would be extremely complicated to switch away from phone numbers and phone numbers in and of themselves do not have considerable drawbacks, so phone numbers will probably be around for the foreseeable future. We humans will no doubt see the actual number less often as our software gets more intelligent, but the number will still exist, much like the ip address of a server.

  17. Re:anonymity by vux984 · · Score: 3

    FB can wind up abandoned as quickly as it gained steam. We saw that with Geocities, Hotmail, and MySpace. I can trust AT&T to be around a long time.

    AT&T can fall off the map tomorrow, and phone numbers continue to work around the world. The advantage of phone and email (as technologies) over facebook messenger is that they aren't tied to a particular company AT ALL.

    My email address will work independently of any company. And i move my email address from host company to company, as I see fit, or even self host if I feel the need.

    My phone, likewise, I've moved between multiple carriers over the years; if carrier A started pissing me off too much, I'd move to carrier B.

    The idea that you can have a messenger account with out a facebook account is just smoke and mirrors... of course you have a facebook account.

    Do NOT want.

  18. Re:Who here doesn't have an e-mail account? by ledow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You have an IP address. Do you know it? Your computer can't really function without it nowadays. It's there, but it's not necessary to know.

    Your phone has an IMEI number. Do you know it? Do you know what IP address it was assigned? Do you care? No.

    But what detail do you remember? What do you login with? How do you give a contact your details? I don't know about you but I don't read out my phone number except in very rare circumstances. At worst, someone dials the other party's number ONCE, and then we both assign the number to a contact on our phones. With name, and photo. The things that remind us of that person. Nobody cares about the number.

    Nobody is saying numbers will go away. We're saying nobody needs know them and it would only take a single protocol to come along with a hint of "coolness" to get rid of them forever.

    Rather than "My number is..." and then a string of numbers, you'll just say "I'm fredbloggs21 on Whatsbook". And people will be able to get your phone number (which they'll store as Fred in their phones), email, IM, etc. just from that. They already do. The younger generations don't piss about with phone numbers already. They have no need. They find each other on facebook and then from there it's "What your instagram?" or whatever.

    Phone numbers will die out of common use, the same way that IP addresses will. Nobody cares about what their particular one is, nobody need know it, nobody need share it. At worst, you give a descriptive name via a service that encompasses that number without you knowing. No different to DNS or email (Do you know what IP of what email server your email goes to when sent to your domain? Or that it goes to port 25? Because 99.9% of people couldn't give a shit).

  19. Re:Universal by caseih · · Score: 5, Informative

    And that's what XMPP was supposed to have fixed. XMPP was really about decentralization and federation. You simply didn't need an account with Google or any particular company to participate. Then Google decided to cut off federation with gmail, making what could have been a great, widely-used protocol, into something incredibly broken. It was this breaking of XMPP by Google (after years of promoting XMPP) that marked the beginning of the change from "don't be evil" into what it has become today.

    I used to run my own Jabber server with my own domain, communicating with gmail users and others, and it worked lovely until Google decided to cut off access to their users. Suddenly my own server became nearly useless with all my non-techy friends suddenly unable to communicate. Sure I could have granted them all accounts on my server, but most of them had just used the google chat program, and switching them to something more open would be difficult for them, to say nothing of *their* friends who are on gmail anyway.

    So XMPP is essentially dead, thanks to google and we are not better off for it, no matter what they want us to believe about Hangouts.

  20. Re:Semantically, aren't we already there? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 3

    You would never do this for business though. And when it comes to communication methods it is business that wins. That is why email continues to dominate despite how many headlines saying email is dead.

  21. Perhaps by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 2

    I can see the phone number giving way to an IPV6 addess eventually, but it's not going to transform into some messenger app.

  22. Never! by ebusinessmedia1 · · Score: 2

    The LAST thing I want is Facebook acting as a platform for ANY of my essential communications. They have repeatedly lied - over and over - about privacy. No way!