2 ms·

worth noting that the 160 char limit on SMS was a product of thoughtful design, and user-centric deliberation, not arbitrary: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/te

worth noting that the 160 char limit on SMS was a product of thoughtful design, and user-centric deliberation, not arbitrary: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/05/invented-text-messaging.html http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/05/invented-... I wish Twitter had the same commitment. Or at least hired product people who used the service.

rajivtiru 9y ago
Did you even read the blog? The increase wasn't arbitrary. And neither is the initial 140 limit... Originally, our constraint was 160 (limit of a text) minus username. But we noticed @biz got 1 more than @jack. For fairness, we chose 140. Now texts are unlimited. Also, we realize that 140 isn't fair—there are differences between languages. We're testing the limits. Hello 280! https://twitter.com/biz/status/912783936123691009 https://twitter.com/biz/status/912783936123691009
eridius 9y ago
The 160 character limit was a balance between "limit should be as low as possible for bandwidth reasons" and "users must be able to express simple messages". The former isn't an issue anymore, so there's not longer any obvious reason why 160 should be the limit.
lern_too_spel 9y ago
According to your article, 160 characters was a product of technical limitations later justified by postcard and Telex research, not the other way around as you claim.