5 ms·
Such an utter lack of understanding of SMS messaging I've rarely seen. Twitter is a joke compared to what it takes to do SMS properly. Not only SMS needs to be
by tx 18y ago
Such an utter lack of understanding of SMS messaging I've rarely seen. Twitter is a joke compared to what it takes to do SMS properly. Not only SMS needs to be persistent, but they also need to be stored and accurately retreived for up to 5 years, which is a goverment regulation in most countries. Moreover, delivery rate needs to be 100%, period. SMS is not a time waster, even pacemakers send SMS messages from inside of human bodies when their batteries need to be replaced. You can't afford to drop those.
I know that the "culture" of Silicon Valley is not to criticize, so let me put it this way: HIRE CAREFULLY for your startup, especially when it comes to engineering. Even if you're solving a trivial issue.
- paul 18y agoPerhaps you've never used SMS? (or at least not in the US) They are frequently late or dropped. (and we pay $0.30/sms for the privilege)
- einarvollset 18y agoDon't get me wrong, I don't think SMS on a truly large scale is trivial. I do, however, think SMS messaging is fundamentally different to what Twitter is doing. The former is unicast: I send you a message. It needs to be stored somewhere (your SMS inbox). Twitter is multicast: I send a message, everyone who subscribe to me needs to get that message. Now, misunderstand me correctly; I don't think this is anything new. My former boss built tools (over 20 years ago) that ran such systems as the NYSE, Swiss Air-traffic control, etc that did fault-tolerant multicast. And the uptime there was somewhat better than Twitter. What led me to post the original comment was this: They are not solving the same problem, but if they were their architecture would be just as flawed as Twitter's.