4 ms·
> This time around, people's smartphones are already the unifier. All messaging apps have notifications, so your phone will tell you what everyone is saying acr
by qyv 10y ago
> This time around, people's smartphones are already the unifier. All messaging apps have notifications, so your phone will tell you what everyone is saying across networks, and you just tap to go straight into whatever app the message was in.
I think you can go even further and say that having different apps for different types of communications is actually a convenience in the context of something like a smartphone. Different apps implicitly cater to a different circle of contacts with distinct levels of privacy, discretion, formality and posterity. If you had to explicitly manage these types of preferences in a single universal app it would be both tedious and error prone. Having separate apps that work is specific ways is just so much simpler to manage, it is convention over configuration.
- peterschroeder 10y agoWe are trying to solve for this issue. We have gotten the feedback you stated before and now we are trying to make it so each of integrations can hold on to some unique aspect within our app. We completely understand every native app has a different feel. It is like having conversations a school to a professor (school email) to having a conversation at a bar (Snapchat). We believe we will be able to create certain environments within our app to hold on the environment of native apps.
- ColanR 10y ago> We completely understand every native app has a different feel. I hope I'm wrong, but I think you're missing the point here. Users may like having separate tools to help them differentiate between different communication tasks. I don't think that trying to manage a bunch of messaging apps is a pain point for most/all people.
- peterschroeder 10y agoTrue, it definitely won't be for all people. I completely get this won't resonate with everyone, but imagine with me for a second. First, we unify messaging and get people interested in that. Then we unify live streams. Then we unify the next thing. At which point we either choose to become something like a super app, or segment it like Zapier.
- ColanR 10y ago> get people interested in that If it isn't a pain point already, then by definition you're solving a problem that isn't there.
- peterschroeder 10y agoI believe the problem is there, I just feel it is not a problem everyone has.
- Fnoord 10y ago> Users may like having separate tools to help them differentiate between different communication tasks. It is because the user ends up having to look at notifications of multiple applications. Those notifications take up space. Right now they're sorted in a way. For example, the way the lockscreen looks, or the time they've arrived. This doesn't necessarily reflect priority for the user. How to achieve this? I think the correct way is by ML/AI. One way could be looking at which notifications the user tends to open first. Or, for example, look at which correspondence appears to be most used. This could even be combined with other factors such as time of the day, day of the week. E.g. the wife might be less important during 9-5 at a weekday. Moreover, to reply to your specific point, a user could decide to user Ulum, plus Signal on the side. Or a user could decide decide to run Ulum, MSN Messenger, and ICQ. My point being, an application can abstract some of the protocols but just because it can't do more doesn't mean the user will use that feature. This is entirely up to the user.
- peterschroeder 10y agoNotification priority could be something we do relatively easy. I am not very well versed in the ML/AI space, but with all the resources on the internet, I am sure I could figure it out. That sounds like something that could be a truly unique feature for us, thanks for the input! Right, everything is entirely up to the user.