41–50 of 51 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2821.txt
I'm going to be totally anal now. RFC 5321 obsoleted 2821 in 2008. Also, SMTP isn't the same as e-mail. Just like IMAP isn't the same as e-mail.
Why this won't have the same problems that Google Wave faced: + It incorporates existing modes of communication. You HAD to have a Wave account to talk to someone else on Wave, and the biggest issue for me when I got my account was that I didn't have anyone to use Wave with. Facebook doesn't particularly care in this case, it wants to aggregate ALL your communication. You'll stay in touch with your less techy friends…
Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail. Those programs which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can.
Does anyone here have already used it? I wonder about two things: file attachments, are they there? and 2nd thing: multi-persons conversation: can you add a new person to an already existing conversation? how does it work with chat or phone-messaging?
I don't remember hearing if you can add some one to an existing conversation. But I clearly remember that they said that it was possible to remove some one from a conversation. Therefore, I assume, that they would have also thought of adding a person.
Why this won't have the same problems that Google Wave faced: + It incorporates existing modes of communication. You HAD to have a Wave account to talk to someone else on Wave, and the biggest issue for me when I got my account was that I didn't have anyone to use Wave with. Facebook doesn't particularly care in this case, it wants to aggregate ALL your communication. You'll stay in touch with your less techy friends…
If someone texts me will the message be available under my Facebook account? From what I see, no, so it's still not enough.
"Today I'm excited to announce the next evolution of Messages. You decide how you want to talk to your friends: via SMS, chat, email or Messages. They will receive your message through whatever medium or device is convenient for them, and you can both have a conversation in real time. You shouldn't have to remember who prefers IM over email or worry about which technology to use. Simply choose their name and type a message."
Am I the only one who sees this as Google Wave Redux? I mean, they even hired the guy who created Google Wave.
Wave took something that worked and made it worse -- fewer contacts, bloated app, confusing purpose.
FB is taking something that works and making it better (for its users) -- more streamlined (like chat), less hassle (existing friends list), less noise ('Other' bin).
The world of asynchronous and synchronous communication is going to clash in a very messy, destructive, apocalyptic Neo-versus-Agent Smith way.
For example:
1. SMS
When I send a message via SMS, it could be either to pass on information or initiate (continue) a conversation. Sometimes the content of the message isn't clear enough to highlight the context and when this happens between a boyfriend and girlfriend, the gates of hell can be opened, and the fury of a thousand suns going supernova is unleashed, usually on the hapless boyfriend (not a true story, I swear).
Or whether you should end the thread with 'ttys' or 'ttyl' or 'brb' as with IM protocol, and trust me, sometimes not continuing a SMS thread or not ending it nicely can lead to you having to spend money to say sorry.
Although I think SMS usage has been happening long enough that people generally tend to interpret context relatively well NOW, SMS communication sometimes do suffer from the problem of parties not knowing whether a conversation is supposed to be happening asynchronously or (relatively) synchronously.
If you have ever sent an SMS (usually to an attractive member of the opposite sex after a first meeting, or maybe a very prospective business contact) and waited for a few hours for a reply, frantically wondering if you had said something wrong, or that person wasn't interested in maintaining what looked like a blossoming relationship, then you understand how different perceptions of what mode a conversation is supposed to be in can sunder the social fabric.
2. Email
We tend to allow the intervals between subsequent emails in a conversation to be longer than SMS. After all, there is the general understanding that accessing and replying to one's email is harder than receiving and sending messages via SMS because of the ubiquity of the mobile phone versus Internet access on the move and the ease of entering a long form email versus sending a SMS. Also, it is easier for most to type long message when emailing than when sending a SMS due to the nature of the clients and where we actually do it (i.e. on the desktop). I usually switch to a more focused mode when reading emails because they generally are about work and are usually longer.
Subject headers in email are a great way to delineate threads. An email with a new subject is the start of a new thread.
3. Instant messaging
Instant messaging is clearly generally expected to be synchronous. When instant messaging, there are socially acceptable standards to start and end a conversation. The signaling has been learned.
Is it going to be impossible to learn the new social rules of engagement? I don't believe it will be so. However, I do believe that the lack of clear signaling of the context of a conversation (i.e. synchronous versus asynchronous, start of a new topic ...) could be disastrous.
Note: Maybe only some of us have to relearn. It could very well be the younger generation already know how to contextualize the messages without use of the various channels, subject headers ... If so, I'm curious how they do it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm going to be totally anal now. RFC 5321 obsoleted 2821 in 2008. Also, SMTP isn't the same as e-mail. Just like IMAP isn't the same as e-mail.
IMAP are POP3 optional. /var/spool/mail/$USER or ~/mobx were enough some time ago, although right now not everyone is running their own mail (smtp) server.
IMO "email" is a combination of the various transport technologies and the message format.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For many people that won't be a problem - I think of those who already use Facebook inbox regulary, many of them already more often than e-mail. I've found out myself doing it more often recently. Why? It's easier and more convenient - when I write a message to John Doe I know exactly to who I am writing, with e-mail you have to remember which e-mail was whose, or which of the e-mails of Joe Doe that you have is that…
Agreed. And I see the larger vision. Yes, it'll be easier. But I, for one, won't use Facebook Messages for SMS. Why would I text Facebook to text my buddy for me? When I can just select him from my address book? All of a sudden the idea of unified communications and messaging is out the window.