3 ms·

Still, most of the time a lot of people will be sitting in front of or pretty close to their laptops. Having the clients available on the phone should not mean

by atleta 6y ago

Still, most of the time a lot of people will be sitting in front of or pretty close to their laptops. Having the clients available on the phone should not mean that we can't have it on the desktop as well. Though, of course, the number 1 priority is being accessible, so unfortunately the priority will be the mobile app, even if quite a lot of people would use that less, for longer chats if they had a choice.

Vinnl 6y ago
I do not share your observation that most people are sitting in front of or close to their personal laptops, and even if they did, I still think the barrier to checking messages would be higher than for their vibrating phone. But yes, of course a phone client does not preclude a desktop client; it's just that being phone-first forces/nudges people to having it on their phone as well, making it more valuable for everyone they know.
- atleta 6y ago
  I was careful enough not to say that most people are sitting in front or close to their personal laptops. I said a lot of people most of the time. (And also didn't say personal, but I guess that doesn't matter.) The point of the laptop is not checking the messages, but typing them. If you're at home, which is where a lot of us are these days, it's pretty easy to open the laptop and save time on typing. BTW, not sure why I got downvoted. Maybe it wasn't you, we'll see.
  - Vinnl 6y ago
    But that's exactly the point: if it's not most people, then network effects are already greatly limited. And if those laptops aren't their personal laptops, then the odds of them having a personal messaging client open are even lower. Consider that most people do have their personal phone on them at all times. My point was exactly that pressuring people to have the client on their phone makes them check the messages more often, because that makes the service more attractive to other users. That, I think, is the reason most popular service are phone-first, even when typing messages is easier on desktop. (And no, I didn't downvote.)

by atleta 6y ago

Vinnl 6y ago

I do not share your observation that most people are sitting in front of or close to their personal laptops, and even if they did, I still think the barrier to checking messages would be higher than for their vibrating phone. But yes, of course a phone client does not preclude a desktop client; it's just that being phone-first forces/nudges people to having it on their phone as well, making it more valuable for everyone they know.

atleta 6y ago
I was careful enough not to say that most people are sitting in front or close to their personal laptops. I said a lot of people most of the time. (And also didn't say personal, but I guess that doesn't matter.) The point of the laptop is not checking the messages, but typing them. If you're at home, which is where a lot of us are these days, it's pretty easy to open the laptop and save time on typing. BTW, not sure why I got downvoted. Maybe it wasn't you, we'll see.
- Vinnl 6y ago
  But that's exactly the point: if it's not most people, then network effects are already greatly limited. And if those laptops aren't their personal laptops, then the odds of them having a personal messaging client open are even lower. Consider that most people do have their personal phone on them at all times. My point was exactly that pressuring people to have the client on their phone makes them check the messages more often, because that makes the service more attractive to other users. That, I think, is the reason most popular service are phone-first, even when typing messages is easier on desktop. (And no, I didn't downvote.)