5 ms·

Most people I know use Skype for the same purpose that I used MSN Messenger for back in 2000. I think I pay $6 a month for a telephone number through Skype. Th

Most people I know use Skype for the same purpose that I used MSN Messenger for back in 2000. I think I pay $6 a month for a telephone number through Skype. The idea of valuing a cell phone chat app at billions of dollars seems silly, because if the cell phone companies made text messages free there would be no reason for the chat apps to exist.

mintplant 11y ago
It would take more than that. SMS delivery delays can be long, MMS is quirky and unreliable, and support for group messaging is bolted on at best and varies widely between carriers and handsets. Mobile chat apps are popular not only because of price but because they offer better UI and more reliable infrastructure than texting.
- MichaelBurge 11y ago
  I feel like these are solvable problems. Even if SMS isn't the right solution, it's clearly already technically possible to send text between phones in an efficient manner using the existing cell phone infrastructure. I could see some low-ranking Google engineer pushing out an update to the default chat app on my $50 Android that allows it to either use SMS or a Google-operated HTTP endpoint, without realizing that he accidentally caused tens of billions of dollars in chat app valuations to evaporate overnight, since the default app is now good enough for most people.
- digi_owl 11y ago
  Best i can tell, group MMS is something Apple drummed up that has no formal spec. Anyways, the reason why these chat systems can be more reliable is that they do not have to deal with crossing network boundaries. If you send and SMS or MMS, it may have to be handed between carrier networks. With a Whatsapp message, stays within their server farm.
  - thaumasiotes 11y ago
    Well, obviously, if I send a whatsapp message over my cell data connection and someone else receives it over their data connection, the message had to be handed between carrier networks (with the internet intermediating). Why is being intermediated by Whatsapp different from being intermediated by AT&T directly?
    - Atheros 11y ago
      AT&T is a lossy network and Whatsapp is designed to operate well over a lossy network. MMS is not.
      - thaumasiotes 11y ago
        Why is this not a problem for AT&T-cell-to-AT&T-cell messages?
    - digi_owl 11y ago
      SMS and MMS is handled in a store and forward fashion, much like email. So if the connection between carriers are down, or saturated, or a million other reasons, it will stall for the duration. And the delivery can only happen over carrier mobile networks. Whatsapp on the other hand can deliver as long as there is some kind of net connection present (wifi, cell, even USB to a PC with ethernet may work in a pinch).
swiley 11y ago
Nope, SMS is incredibly bad. Maybe if someone made an IM app that could interoperate with normal email clients that might be the case.
arjie 11y ago
It's not true that there's no reason for the chat apps if texting is free. For me and all of my friends text messaging is practically free (there's no unit cost, and every plan we would want has no unit cost), but we use WhatsApp and WeChat just as much. The last two are super convenient when you want to send pictures, video, and location and they have indicators to tell you if people are online or not and if they've seen your message or not. They have reliable group messaging unlike iMessage which only works with half your friends and is therefore useless, and Hangouts which switches views so slowly the conversation has gone right by you. Oh, and the cost thing just makes things worse because these chat apps work internationally seamlessly with all features. I can be in an airport in Thailand and just need to find a WiFi point and I could just as well be sitting in SFO waiting for my plane.
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  > we use WhatsApp and WeChat just as much. > The last two are super convenient when you want to send pictures, video, and location and they have indicators to tell you if people are online or not and if they've seen your message or not. I use wechat heavily. I haven't noticed presence indicators or message status at all. Presence indicators actually contradict the basic premise of a phone messaging app, which is that the other person is always online. Your phone moves with you. Where might I find these purported features of wechat?
  - arjie 11y ago
    Whoops sorry. I switch between the two (WhatsApp and WeChat) for different groups. That's a WhatsApp feature and it's great (says "last seen at" or "Online").
- phillc73 11y ago
  > For me and all of my friends text messaging is practically free (there's no unit cost, and every plan we would want has no unit cost) I'm guessing you and your friends all reside in the same country. SMS/text messaging can get very expensive, quite quickly, if you're regularly communicating with people in different countries. Eighteen months ago convinced just four of my most "messaged" contacts in different countries to switch to a messaging app (Telegram in this case) and I estimate savings in the region of £50-£75 per month.
paganel 11y ago
> because if the cell phone companies made text messages free there would be no reason for the chat apps to exist. That's a very big "if". About two years ago I met someone new in my life and suddenly starting sending text messages (I usually hadn't). That month's phone bill was about ~150 euros, while it was usually ~50 euros. The following month the same happened. That's when I decided that I should install Whatsapp after all and not overpay for this ridiculous over-charges on simple text messages. For people like me apps like Whatsapp actually added financial value to our lives. What I'm trying to say is that I don't see mobile phone companies making SMS messages free anytime soon, that's how they still milk lots of people out of their money.

mintplant 11y ago

It would take more than that. SMS delivery delays can be long, MMS is quirky and unreliable, and support for group messaging is bolted on at best and varies widely between carriers and handsets. Mobile chat apps are popular not only because of price but because they offer better UI and more reliable infrastructure than texting.

MichaelBurge 11y ago
I feel like these are solvable problems. Even if SMS isn't the right solution, it's clearly already technically possible to send text between phones in an efficient manner using the existing cell phone infrastructure. I could see some low-ranking Google engineer pushing out an update to the default chat app on my $50 Android that allows it to either use SMS or a Google-operated HTTP endpoint, without realizing that he accidentally caused tens of billions of dollars in chat app valuations to evaporate overnight, since the default app is now good enough for most people.
digi_owl 11y ago
Best i can tell, group MMS is something Apple drummed up that has no formal spec. Anyways, the reason why these chat systems can be more reliable is that they do not have to deal with crossing network boundaries. If you send and SMS or MMS, it may have to be handed between carrier networks. With a Whatsapp message, stays within their server farm.
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  Well, obviously, if I send a whatsapp message over my cell data connection and someone else receives it over their data connection, the message had to be handed between carrier networks (with the internet intermediating). Why is being intermediated by Whatsapp different from being intermediated by AT&T directly?
  - Atheros 11y ago
    AT&T is a lossy network and Whatsapp is designed to operate well over a lossy network. MMS is not.
    - thaumasiotes 11y ago
      Why is this not a problem for AT&T-cell-to-AT&T-cell messages?
  - digi_owl 11y ago
    SMS and MMS is handled in a store and forward fashion, much like email. So if the connection between carriers are down, or saturated, or a million other reasons, it will stall for the duration. And the delivery can only happen over carrier mobile networks. Whatsapp on the other hand can deliver as long as there is some kind of net connection present (wifi, cell, even USB to a PC with ethernet may work in a pinch).

swiley 11y ago

Nope, SMS is incredibly bad. Maybe if someone made an IM app that could interoperate with normal email clients that might be the case.

arjie 11y ago

It's not true that there's no reason for the chat apps if texting is free. For me and all of my friends text messaging is practically free (there's no unit cost, and every plan we would want has no unit cost), but we use WhatsApp and WeChat just as much. The last two are super convenient when you want to send pictures, video, and location and they have indicators to tell you if people are online or not and if they've seen your message or not. They have reliable group messaging unlike iMessage which only works with half your friends and is therefore useless, and Hangouts which switches views so slowly the conversation has gone right by you. Oh, and the cost thing just makes things worse because these chat apps work internationally seamlessly with all features. I can be in an airport in Thailand and just need to find a WiFi point and I could just as well be sitting in SFO waiting for my plane.

thaumasiotes 11y ago
> we use WhatsApp and WeChat just as much. > The last two are super convenient when you want to send pictures, video, and location and they have indicators to tell you if people are online or not and if they've seen your message or not. I use wechat heavily. I haven't noticed presence indicators or message status at all. Presence indicators actually contradict the basic premise of a phone messaging app, which is that the other person is always online. Your phone moves with you. Where might I find these purported features of wechat?
- arjie 11y ago
  Whoops sorry. I switch between the two (WhatsApp and WeChat) for different groups. That's a WhatsApp feature and it's great (says "last seen at" or "Online").
phillc73 11y ago
> For me and all of my friends text messaging is practically free (there's no unit cost, and every plan we would want has no unit cost) I'm guessing you and your friends all reside in the same country. SMS/text messaging can get very expensive, quite quickly, if you're regularly communicating with people in different countries. Eighteen months ago convinced just four of my most "messaged" contacts in different countries to switch to a messaging app (Telegram in this case) and I estimate savings in the region of £50-£75 per month.

paganel 11y ago

> because if the cell phone companies made text messages free there would be no reason for the chat apps to exist. That's a very big "if". About two years ago I met someone new in my life and suddenly starting sending text messages (I usually hadn't). That month's phone bill was about ~150 euros, while it was usually ~50 euros. The following month the same happened. That's when I decided that I should install Whatsapp after all and not overpay for this ridiculous over-charges on simple text messages. For people like me apps like Whatsapp actually added financial value to our lives. What I'm trying to say is that I don't see mobile phone companies making SMS messages free anytime soon, that's how they still milk lots of people out of their money.