3 ms·
Those were not simple, seamless, cross-platform, drop-in replacements to SMS though, which is what OP was referring to by “text messaging.” Sure, clunky systems
by p49k 6y ago
Those were not simple, seamless, cross-platform, drop-in replacements to SMS though, which is what OP was referring to by “text messaging.” Sure, clunky systems which had no chance of mass adoption existed before.
- thaumasiotes 6y agoThey were if you're willing to overlook the requirement -- which WhatsApp shares -- for the other person to use the same app. (Well, protocol. Gaim handled AIM and MSN fine.) The only thing SMS offered was that the other person didn't need to be running anything. WhatsApp didn't offer that, and also didn't improve on the other messengers of the day.
- read_if_gay_ 6y agoI haven’t used the services you mentioned but maybe WhatsApp was easier to sign up for since you just needed a phone number?
- p49k 6y agoYou’re missing the fact that WhatsApp was actually available for essentially all phones (even in 3rd world markets) and that nothing else is needed. AIM and MSN required an email address which means you need one, as well as an email client on your phone, not something that all people want or have. The signup process wasn’t even always available within the device, you might need access to a desktop to complete signup. They both require you to remember and accurately share an extra piece of info you have to memorize (email or username). They were both extremely slow, clunky and unreliable compared to WhatsApp. Essentially, 95% of the reasons WhatsApp was successful were things you glossed over here.
- nicoburns 6y ago> You’re missing the fact that WhatsApp was actually available for essentially all phones And it still is. Even cheap feature phones often have WhatsApp support.