Why Do People Still Text
-
For people driving, email is really great. Because you get and send emails that are stored as connections are available. At least for every phone I have seen, texting requires you to watch it send and pay attention, sometimes for a few minutes, to see if it is received. And you still have the worry that their device is not with them and it just looks like they have access to it, but that is relatively minor. But with email, it just keeps trying to get the message out as it can, does not require manual intervention in case it fails. I've definitely had to spend ten minutes trying to get a text to send before even when there was signal. Without it, the time could be unlimited.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
Unlimited has nothing to do with coverage. You pull out random unrelated facts trying to make an argument that doesn't hold up.
But it does. That's part of the point. You are using unlimited as if it means free or included. That you don't have to pay for it. But you are paying for access to the service and you get it curtailed. My email works without a penalty anywhere I go, anytime. It's very, very related.
Yes and no - both services (SMS and email) require access to someone's network in order to function. Granted email requires access to the internet in general and SMS requires access to a cellular network that's compatible with the device, so this makes email probably significantly easier to access. This solves problems where an area might only have GSM cellular and you only have a CDMA phone but wifi/internet access is pretty much wifi/internet access anywhere you go.. so assuming you can get on the internet, you can get your email.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I don't hold conversations over text - more than 3 text in one direction and I convert to either a phone call or real IM. Phone if I'm not at my computer, and IM if I am at my computer. And these days, I really don't get many texts because I use FB chat 80% of the time anyway...
So you don't have the issue of people not having access to those other things? That was a key reason that people had said they were using texting in the first place, the lack of Internet on one side or the other.
Why use texts at all if both sides already have the other mechanisms?
Because people move to new options at a glacial pace.
For example, I have FB chat on my phone, my wife does not. Why - because she hasn't had a need/desire. So If I want to talk to her quickly without a phone call, I have to use SMS.
Can I fix that? sure - I could install FB chat on her phone, show her how to use it and we'd be golden... but I'm just explaining the glacial pace that people move to new platforms.
The argument that kids stay on SMS as a form of defiance isn't one I've heard before - they do it because it's built it, easy and requires nearly no work (they already have all of their friends phone numbers in the phone, but they might not have all of their email addresses in there. Of course they all have Facebook now too, so many do use FB chat as well. and It's just as easy or easier than SMSing.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Yes in Google Hangouts
Interesting. I was not aware of this. That's a "nice" feature. So it just shows up like any other Google IM channel but to a phone number rather than to a person?
at least it did the last time I used it.
-
I really wish I could switch to T-mobile but people on their plans in my area are the people who never have cell reception.
With texting I don't need to know the email account people check most often, or decide which account to email. It's also guaranteed to pop up on their phone, while some people never set up email access on their phone for whatever reason. When they do, the email apps are clunkier than the built-in messaging apps because they have to provide a bunch of extra features.
The biggest thing IMO is that there's a much better signal to noise ratio with texts. If I text someone I'm pretty sure they will see & read the message within 24 hours. Messages won't get lost in a sea of newsletters, spam, or anything like that. In contrast, there's a growing UX movement amongst mobile email apps to help people cut through email clutter and read what's actually important in their inbox.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Also, for traveling, texting often requires getting a new number, and therefore a new identity, in different countries. Texting for people outside of the US can require quite a bit of extra management.
I have friend who travel and email and Facebook work but texting is something that they lost. They were texters before, then suddenly everyone had to figure out how to reach them. Texting, I feel, is less consistent especially in times of emergency.
Yes, these people, where you happen to find yourself these days, are the major exception to the texting norm. The US doesn't have this problem as a general rule - you can take your cell phone with you pretty much anywhere in the country, and as long as you can make calls you can get and send text messages.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
If I receive texts that are not alerts, I must either block people or lose my alerting capabilities. It's the reception that causes the problem.
I find it hard to believe that a guy with your technical proclivity has not yet found a way to make it better than that!
-
@MattSpeller said:
I find it hard to believe that a guy with your technical proclivity has not yet found a way to make it better than that!
Not without filtering out family.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Also, for traveling, texting often requires getting a new number, and therefore a new identity, in different countries. Texting for people outside of the US can require quite a bit of extra management.
I have friend who travel and email and Facebook work but texting is something that they lost. They were texters before, then suddenly everyone had to figure out how to reach them. Texting, I feel, is less consistent especially in times of emergency.
Yes, these people, where you happen to find yourself these days, are the major exception to the texting norm. The US doesn't have this problem as a general rule - you can take your cell phone with you pretty much anywhere in the country, and as long as you can make calls you can get and send text messages.
Yes, if we are assuming a US-centric world, SMS works relatively well. But it always comes with big assumptions like you aren't leaving the country, have reception at home, have reception at work, are allowed to have a phone in those places, your device doesn't break or die, that you always have your device, etc. People using text messaging - how are you not tied to your devices in a way that those just on email are not?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
b) they don't have enough to say to bother composing an email - again that believe that emails are more formal - look at Matt's example above.
Maybe, but that's my point... why? Are we just saying that end users are so confused that we should give up and there is no helping them and they will communicate badly? I get that, I understand. I'm not saying we can fix the world, but if we don't try it gets worse more quickly, right?
This is something I struggle with. I feel like it is condescending if I agree to this being the reason, that I'm giving users too little credit and it is wrong to do so. I keep fighting to find another reason.
What are those who are only texting you, texting you about? Is email the solution they really should be using? or is it better suited to IM? Until MS Send came along I would never consider (today) to use email to hold a give and take conversation - it's just the wrong platform. MS Send solves that by making the interface simplier - Hell I really do hope they come out with a desktop client AND bring it to Exchange 2016 (I'm sure I'll be using that before we move to O365)... I love the idea - having a conversation with my boss that's all saved to email but done through an IM client would be awesome!
-
@Dashrender said:
What are those who are only texting you, texting you about? Is email the solution they really should be using? or is it better suited to IM?
Using anything that uses the Internet is fine. Except weird crap like Whats App that is proprietary and locks you down to the device anyway - mimicking bad behaviour for no reason.
I'm not arguing email vs. IM, I'm arguing everything vs. text.
-
@Dashrender said:
Until MS Send came along I would never consider (today) to use email to hold a give and take conversation - it's just the wrong platform. MS Send solves that by making the interface simplier
It doesn't make it easier, it makes it seem easier. You could do this before with other clients. I'm undecided if I actually find it easier than normal mail interface or if it is purely mental.
-
@Dashrender said:
I love the idea - having a conversation with my boss that's all saved to email but done through an IM client would be awesome!
We were doing this with Zimbra around 2007.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
By free I assume you mean the use of someone else's wifi connection, not a cellular data connection.
I've listed this caveat before. And I totally understand that it is apples or oranges. BUT.... with convergence you have to assume that you will, one way or another, attempt to have Internet access. That might be a horribly wrong assumption, but that is the assumption. That by going to a single universal platform you eliminate the need to get many platforms AND the platform is vendorless and generic. So I can use any Internet, anywhere to get what I need. I can borrow someone's phone, computer or wifi... all will let me retrieve my email. The email itself costs nothing, the platform is universal and equitable.
With an SMS I cannot do that (unless I hijack it to non-SMS like Apple and Google are doing - which is an attempt to reconverge a non-convergent technology.) If a message goes to SMS and my phone is gone, destroyed, number changed, out of service, etc. that's it. I can't switch to another medium to get that message. I can't borrow something to get to it. I am carrier dependent, service dependent, number dependent and device dependent.
Sure, but you are with a phone call as well. But from a purely messaging standpoint I see what you're getting at. The question is, does it matter? Like the phone call I'm guessing most people don't believe that a text message will be saved by the receiver for very long, or in general used as an archive (mainly for the reasons you've mentioned already), so it's not like the average user worries about losing their SMS messages, they are probably much more concerned about the lost photos.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
really? if those people are sending things only via text to you, perhaps that's because a) they never use email or b)
Except for the teens, they all had email and switched off of it because it "wasn't cool" or whatever. I've actually been told "wasn't cool" as a reason before.
Email clients, especially on phones, haven't been great - changes in view to conversation mode definitely improved things greatly - replying and reading responses look more like SMS messages and flow better, but that's what 2-3 years old at best?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
By free I assume you mean the use of someone else's wifi connection, not a cellular data connection.
I've listed this caveat before. And I totally understand that it is apples or oranges. BUT.... with convergence you have to assume that you will, one way or another, attempt to have Internet access. That might be a horribly wrong assumption, but that is the assumption. That by going to a single universal platform you eliminate the need to get many platforms AND the platform is vendorless and generic. So I can use any Internet, anywhere to get what I need. I can borrow someone's phone, computer or wifi... all will let me retrieve my email. The email itself costs nothing, the platform is universal and equitable.
With an SMS I cannot do that (unless I hijack it to non-SMS like Apple and Google are doing - which is an attempt to reconverge a non-convergent technology.) If a message goes to SMS and my phone is gone, destroyed, number changed, out of service, etc. that's it. I can't switch to another medium to get that message. I can't borrow something to get to it. I am carrier dependent, service dependent, number dependent and device dependent.
Sure, but you are with a phone call as well. But from a purely messaging standpoint I see what you're getting at. The question is, does it matter? Like the phone call I'm guessing most people don't believe that a text message will be saved by the receiver for very long, or in general used as an archive (mainly for the reasons you've mentioned already), so it's not like the average user worries about losing their SMS messages, they are probably much more concerned about the lost photos.
Oh that's a different concern, not what I meant. I mean if I'm sending critical info to someone's SMS, they might never get it. It's ephemeral. Only for things that are transient. Like what if there was a big emergency and you needed to fly to California to deal with it. But your phone was broken when that happened. No matter what, you are going to be delayed in getting that message. But if it was an email you can always just go find a way to get the message. If it is SMS, you might never get it but the sending think that you did.
-
@Dashrender said:
Email clients, especially on phones, haven't been great - changes in view to conversation mode definitely improved things greatly - replying and reading responses look more like SMS messages and flow better, but that's what 2-3 years old at best?
I've had that since 2006. Blackberrys had that long before I was using it. Email was effectively instant and worked as easy as texting does today. I went to a Motorola Q in 2007, worked like that too.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@MattSpeller said:
Everyone who drives a car should drive a fuel efficient, small, built for A to B car. I feel like that's the argument you're in here.
This is not a comparison. The issue is that when you text people you do it to other people. If this was about HOW you read your communications it would not matter. It is about how you force others to communicate.
If you email them, are you not forcing them to use email to communicate with them?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Assuming you have a mobile phone with them. 400 Mb a month?
My father does not. I'm not aware of that being a limitation.
really? So I can go to a t-Mobile store and buy an Android tablet from them ( I assume I must at least do that) that is cellular enabled, and I can get free 400 MB a month wireless data? Damn I'm going to have to look into that.
-
@Dashrender said:
If you email them, are you not forcing them to use email to communicate with them?
That's completely valid. Except that having email is optional. My text is not. I got texts on an account that I didn't even know how it and I was charged for it. I'm sure this happened to tons of people when texting became suddenly in vogue. Nearly everyone has phones, people just started texting even knowing that almost no one had free texts originally. The text functionality was turned on sometimes without people even being told or could not be disabled.
So only sort of. They obviously can and do opt not to have email. It isn't tied to some other service. But text you can force onto a device that they have for another purpose.
