Why Do People Still Text
-
@dashrender said in Why Do People Still Text:
Why do people still text? At least in the US? Because it works for them.
My argument is that it doesn't, but they don't realize all of the problems that they are having and just accept it not working well. Much like how businesses say "it worked for me" when, if you do a post mortem, you discover that it didn't.
People use it despite it not meeting their needs or not meeting them well.
-
@dashrender said in Why Do People Still Text:
Unlike Scott - the masses do keep their phones near them and charged, at least near enough that other solutions don't present themselves as a much more reliable communication channel.
Yes, in a great effort to make things work that are obtuse, complicated and unreliable so that they, through huge effort of things "not working" can cling to antiquated technologies.
Why keep phones next to you when you are at a computer with a nice keyboard? That's some seriously weird effort just to use phone-only technologies as if it is the 1980s.
-
@dashrender said in Why Do People Still Text:
Cost - Scott mentioned the other side of this, in the US, SMSing in basically included in all plans - no cost difference, therefore no friction/reason to find another solution.
It wasn't for a long time. And while it is "included" in most other countries, too, it's not free between users. US only works because it's a single, enormous market. It's an exception, not a rule.
-
@dashrender said in Why Do People Still Text:
I'm curious - do those plans there include a specific amount of data for a flat rate? Or is data unlimited like on so many plans in the US now?
In places like Nicaragua, things like WhatsApp and Telegram don't use your data rate. So it's unlimited as long as you have a phone. Unlimited calls, messages, videos, pictures, file transfers, etc. All in one place. All with huge bandwidth. All at the minimum price.
Using anything other than those protocols means using multiple tools, losing security, using data rates or SMS rates, losing interoperability... all at great effort.
Just like in the US, sending pictures, files, videos, making video calls... none of that works or works reliably over SMS. We have customers in the US try to use texting regularly and it creates so much work because they are always trying files too large, files that get compressed and are unusable, file types are not supported, can't do real time video, etc.
Texting isn't "working" for most people. It's a combination of people willing to do a lot of work to pretend it's working for them (the hipster complex) and confusion as people think they are texting often when they are not.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Why Do People Still Text:
@dashrender said in Why Do People Still Text:
Unlike Scott - the masses do keep their phones near them and charged, at least near enough that other solutions don't present themselves as a much more reliable communication channel.
Yes, in a great effort to make things work that are obtuse, complicated and unreliable so that they, through huge effort of things "not working" can cling to antiquated technologies.
Why keep phones next to you when you are at a computer with a nice keyboard? That's some seriously weird effort just to use phone-only technologies as if it is the 1980s.
Many corporate jobs won't let you install whatever IM solution you're using. or are blocking them to keep malware at bay.
Same goes for personal email - all of the hospitals around here recently set blocks in place for as many email providers as they can (I assume they subscribe to some type of list). One health center was hit through someone's email - so they really locked that down. I assume they also put all kinds of filters in place on their corp email.
With those things in mind, I can definitely see people needing to keep their own device/phone/tablet near by for personal type communications throughout the day.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Why Do People Still Text:
@dashrender said in Why Do People Still Text:
Why do people still text? At least in the US? Because it works for them.
My argument is that it doesn't, but they don't realize all of the problems that they are having and just accept it not working well. Much like how businesses say "it worked for me" when, if you do a post mortem, you discover that it didn't.
People use it despite it not meeting their needs or not meeting them well.
Well - this is the reality of a ton of things - cable TV hasn't worked well for most people for ages... The Tivo was a stop gap solution (the VHS before that) - but now streaming anywhere anytime has replaced cable TV - yet, there are still millions and millions of cable TV subscribers - sure it's not the best solution, but the friction of moving to something completely different is to great for those people for whatever reason. Just because you choose to change doesn't mean they are wrong not to - gawd, did I really just say that while thinking of faxes? LOL
-
@scottalanmiller said in Why Do People Still Text:
@dashrender said in Why Do People Still Text:
Unlike Scott - the masses do keep their phones near them and charged, at least near enough that other solutions don't present themselves as a much more reliable communication channel.
Yes, in a great effort to make things work that are obtuse, complicated and unreliable so that they, through huge effort of things "not working" can cling to antiquated technologies.
Why keep phones next to you when you are at a computer with a nice keyboard? That's some seriously weird effort just to use phone-only technologies as if it is the 1980s.
While it isn't anywhere near perfect - what really is - SMS's biggest advantage in the US is ubiquity - you have a cellphone? then you have SMS. Sure, some tiny percent of the population doesn't have a cellphone, or they have a flip phone, so SMS isn't an option, but those people are so few that it doesn't affect the masses.
Email would be a great replacement - but there's so much crap in email that many just ignore it.
If, somehow, one player in the US stood up and everyone wanted/did joined them.. then they would likely become the defacto replacement for SMS.
I can only assume What'sApp did that in CA and SA. Scott told me that What'sApp is so huge that they actually work with direct connections to the cellular carriers in these locations - not through a typical internet connection like we use in the US. I wonder where the money comes from to pay for that? Do the carriers share their revenue with What'sApp? are there ads on the the phones? Do people have to pay for What'sApp?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Why Do People Still Text:
@dashrender said in Why Do People Still Text:
Cost - Scott mentioned the other side of this, in the US, SMSing in basically included in all plans - no cost difference, therefore no friction/reason to find another solution.
It wasn't for a long time. And while it is "included" in most other countries, too, it's not free between users. US only works because it's a single, enormous market. It's an exception, not a rule.
I worded my post with that knowledge in hand.
This board is mainly visited by US persons - so I responded mainly to that group.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Why Do People Still Text:
@dashrender said in Why Do People Still Text:
I'm curious - do those plans there include a specific amount of data for a flat rate? Or is data unlimited like on so many plans in the US now?
In places like Nicaragua, things like WhatsApp and Telegram don't use your data rate. So it's unlimited as long as you have a phone. Unlimited calls, messages, videos, pictures, file transfers, etc. All in one place. All with huge bandwidth. All at the minimum price.
So where in the US, the carriers provide SMSing free - in those areas you mention, those carriers offer WhatsApp, etc free.
The same could happen in the US - but my question is - how is it paid for? And I already mentioned that the gov't definitely doesn't want a third party to get in the mix and block their access to monitor communications.
Using anything other than those protocols means using multiple tools, losing security, using data rates or SMS rates, losing interoperability... all at great effort.
yeah the SMS protocol is shit.
Just like in the US, sending pictures, files, videos, making video calls... none of that works or works reliably over SMS. We have customers in the US try to use texting regularly and it creates so much work because they are always trying files too large, files that get compressed and are unusable, file types are not supported, can't do real time video, etc.
Texting isn't "working" for most people. It's a combination of people willing to do a lot of work to pretend it's working for them (the hipster complex) and confusion as people think they are texting often when they are not.
Sure, again SMS is shit. that siad
-
@scottalanmiller said in Why Do People Still Text:
People use it despite it not meeting their needs or not meeting them well.
Not meeting your needs, is not failing to meet their needs.
Stop imposing your own perception on "everyone"
-
@dashrender said in Why Do People Still Text:
they have a flip phone, so SMS isn't an option, but those people are so few that it doesn't affect the masses.
Huh? Every flip phone and service I've had in the 90s and early 2000s had SMS texting.
-
@dashrender said in Why Do People Still Text:
The same could happen in the US - but my question is - how is it paid for? And I already mentioned that the gov't definitely doesn't want a third party to get in the mix and block their access to monitor communications.
It's paid for by customer on a monthly basis
-
My wife and I text - she's not interested in using a third party application...
That said, I use any one of the following:
- Skype
- Telegram
- Signal
- Messenger (rare - as I dislike the FB Stream)
- Cliq (NTG)
- Discord
- NextCloud (retired self hosted server)
- Google Voice (rarely)
My office is in a poor coverage area for cell, but it's better then internet over cell. Texting works more reliably there.
-
@obsolesce said in Why Do People Still Text:
@dashrender said in Why Do People Still Text:
they have a flip phone, so SMS isn't an option, but those people are so few that it doesn't affect the masses.
Huh? Every flip phone and service I've had in the 90s and early 2000s had SMS texting.
sure it does, but those that I know that have flip phones don't text, I know three.. none of them use SMS.
-
@dashrender said in Why Do People Still Text:
@obsolesce said in Why Do People Still Text:
@dashrender said in Why Do People Still Text:
they have a flip phone, so SMS isn't an option, but those people are so few that it doesn't affect the masses.
Huh? Every flip phone and service I've had in the 90s and early 2000s had SMS texting.
sure it does, but those that I know that have flip phones don't text, I know three.. none of them use SMS.
Not an option versus choosing not to use something are very different things...
-
@obsolesce said in Why Do People Still Text:
@dashrender said in Why Do People Still Text:
@obsolesce said in Why Do People Still Text:
@dashrender said in Why Do People Still Text:
they have a flip phone, so SMS isn't an option, but those people are so few that it doesn't affect the masses.
Huh? Every flip phone and service I've had in the 90s and early 2000s had SMS texting.
sure it does, but those that I know that have flip phones don't text, I know three.. none of them use SMS.
Not an option versus choosing not to use something are very different things...
wow - you're right, I massively over stated it.
Supposedly places like Africa flip phones are about all they have, and they do their whole digital lives on those things.
-
@jaredbusch said in Why Do People Still Text:
@scottalanmiller said in Why Do People Still Text:
People use it despite it not meeting their needs or not meeting them well.
Not meeting your needs, is not failing to meet their needs.
Stop imposing your own perception on "everyone"
Just because I pay more attention to their needs just makes me an IT pro, rather than a blind consumer. This is literally a huge portion of our careers... to look at the technology that others user and help them understand their needs and how to fill them.
MY needs aren't the issue. It's other people failing at their own needs.
Why are we in IT if we ignore this core component of it?
-
@dashrender said in Why Do People Still Text:
So where in the US, the carriers provide SMSing free - in those areas you mention, those carriers offer WhatsApp, etc free.
Most of the US (all carriers that I know) have free WhatsApp (via free data). There are likely exceptions, but I'm not familiar with any. Definitely all with free SMS have free data, too.
Plus if you don't have SMS, you can still use wifi on the device for data services, but not SMS.
-
@dashrender said in Why Do People Still Text:
This board is mainly visited by US persons - so I responded mainly to that group.
That only counts if that is true, you think that majority alone makes it relevant, and if that group is not just American, but also only wants to communicate with other Americans. It's a lot of "ifs" to depend on. None of which are in the context of the post.
And I deal with Americans every day that have these issues, because not all Americans are in America 100% of the time.
And as an American that this affects, it seems weird for you to have this context.
-
@dashrender said in Why Do People Still Text:
While it isn't anywhere near perfect - what really is - SMS's biggest advantage in the US is ubiquity - you have a cellphone? then you have SMS.
That's true today, in the US. But it wasn't true when I first started having these conversations. Texting was gaining use when lots of people didn't have it. And then when people had it, but it wasn't free.
And while you might say everyone has it and it is free, that's for personal devices only, and only for people over a certain age and even then, only with a certain (low bar) of affluence.
But I have lots of young family members who have been using non-SMS services for many years but either don't have or just got SMS service. You are thinking purely of reasonably affluent, American adults and no one else. And only those that don't travel, have family that travels, or have family that is poor or young.
