5 ms·

> Then, I need to find a second to let them know of this (unless I either totally drop the ball or consciously decide to not reply). This seems strange to me.

> Then, I need to find a second to let them know of this (unless I either totally drop the ball or consciously decide to not reply). This seems strange to me. I view IM as asynchronous. If someone messages me while I'm busy, I'll just reply later. And I don't expect people to answer immediatly. No need to sync to chat together (of course if we're both available we can chat in sync).

spike021 6y ago
Honestly that's my point (and perhaps I should have been more clear about it). I think in hindsight I vastly prefer synchronous chat- which is why I pointed out in the beginning that AIM was the closest online communication to in-person communication. With asynchronous communication you do need to be much more proactive in how you handle your 'threads'. As I mentioned before, you need to remember or decide to reply _eventually_. It's also possible that in the meantime your thread (basically 1:1 communication with a person) will fork off (i.e. you share a tweet with someone in Twitter while simultaneously having an asynchronous conversation about some other topic in iMessages).
- addicted 6y ago
  The “asynchronous” chat apps are designed to basically be synchronous. And aggressively so. That’s why you have that aggressive red notification badge with the number of unread messages that your brain requires you to get rid of. That’s why when someone sends you a message, the default is to aggressively slide a notification with the message no matter what you’re doing.
batiudrami 6y ago
IM didn't used to be like that because we didn't have clients on our phones. An "online" status meant that someone was sitting at their computer and happy to chat (or they'd have the client closed).
- phire 6y ago
  Or you would set your status to "appear offline" From memory AIM/MSN didn't even have offline messaging. If someone was offline, you either waited for them to be online, or you would contact them via email/txt/landline.
  - moistbar 6y ago
    I remember AIM having the ability to forward messages to SMS when you were offline, and Pidgin had the ability to "pounce" someone, which would queue up a message to send them next time they logged on.
    - breakfastduck 6y ago
      Pidgin - now that's a name I haven't heard in a long time! Made me immediately think of Adium, which I used to talk on MSM via my mac because the official client was woeful.
      - moistbar 6y ago
        Libpurple was friggin excellent.
  - toast0 6y ago
    AIM eventually got offline messaging; I beleive with AIM 6.0 that launched in late 2006.
    - phire 6y ago
      I think all my friends had moved to google talk and text messaging by 2006.
- guessbest 6y ago
  ICQ was like that since the mid 90's.
iso1631 6y ago
Indeed, if I want synchronous chat, I'll make a phone call. If I want a response at some point I'll send a message.
- cjrp 6y ago
  This was talking on the phone for people who don't like talking on the phone. If that makes any sense.
  - ModernMech 6y ago
    This makes perfect sense to me. I don't know what it is about talking on the phone, but it's an extremely anxiety inducing experience for me. I'm generally fine with people, but if I have a choice of walking down the street to talk with them in person or call them on the phone, I will make the walk every time. Best I can figure out it stems from being verbally abused as a teenager when I had a job making cold calls. People are vicious on the phone in a way they never are in person. Some people seem to use strangers on the phone as an opportunity to safely vent whatever pent-up rage they have. And even though people are just as vicious online, it just doesn't have the same bite as it does when it's a human voice filled with rage.
    - progman32 6y ago
      I'm the same way, sans the cold calling experience. Would much rather drive down to talk to someone at the counter vs. calling the business from home.
    - jki275 6y ago
      I don’t have the cold calling experience, but I view phone conversation the same way you do. No idea why - and it baffles my extrovert spouse.
    - account42 6y ago
      > Best I can figure out it stems from being verbally abused as a teenager when I had a job making cold calls. People are vicious on the phone in a way they never are in person. Or maybe people are vicious when they receive unsolicited spam calls.
beowulfey 6y ago
yeah, for me treating im as asynchronous is redundant. that’s why we had email. aim was a phone call. but i also treat it asynchronous these days and might even step away from a conversation mid thought. i hate when i do it but it’s a very bad habit encouraged by the apps. ah well
eznzt 6y ago
I hate that it is asynchronous now. I liked it back before when you talked to someone who was online and you knew he was engaged in the conversation. Now all of that is gone. As you say "I'll just reply later"—I hate that.
foldr 6y ago
The thing is that this makes it almost impossible to chat to people over text these days. If you try it, it's an infuriating experience where you wait several minutes for a reply every time. In the old days, you could actually have a text conversation with someone on MSN messenger.

spike021 6y ago

Honestly that's my point (and perhaps I should have been more clear about it). I think in hindsight I vastly prefer synchronous chat- which is why I pointed out in the beginning that AIM was the closest online communication to in-person communication. With asynchronous communication you do need to be much more proactive in how you handle your 'threads'. As I mentioned before, you need to remember or decide to reply _eventually_. It's also possible that in the meantime your thread (basically 1:1 communication with a person) will fork off (i.e. you share a tweet with someone in Twitter while simultaneously having an asynchronous conversation about some other topic in iMessages).

addicted 6y ago
The “asynchronous” chat apps are designed to basically be synchronous. And aggressively so. That’s why you have that aggressive red notification badge with the number of unread messages that your brain requires you to get rid of. That’s why when someone sends you a message, the default is to aggressively slide a notification with the message no matter what you’re doing.

batiudrami 6y ago

IM didn't used to be like that because we didn't have clients on our phones. An "online" status meant that someone was sitting at their computer and happy to chat (or they'd have the client closed).

phire 6y ago
Or you would set your status to "appear offline" From memory AIM/MSN didn't even have offline messaging. If someone was offline, you either waited for them to be online, or you would contact them via email/txt/landline.
- moistbar 6y ago
  I remember AIM having the ability to forward messages to SMS when you were offline, and Pidgin had the ability to "pounce" someone, which would queue up a message to send them next time they logged on.
  - breakfastduck 6y ago
    Pidgin - now that's a name I haven't heard in a long time! Made me immediately think of Adium, which I used to talk on MSM via my mac because the official client was woeful.
    - moistbar 6y ago
      Libpurple was friggin excellent.
- toast0 6y ago
  AIM eventually got offline messaging; I beleive with AIM 6.0 that launched in late 2006.
  - phire 6y ago
    I think all my friends had moved to google talk and text messaging by 2006.
guessbest 6y ago
ICQ was like that since the mid 90's.

iso1631 6y ago

Indeed, if I want synchronous chat, I'll make a phone call. If I want a response at some point I'll send a message.

cjrp 6y ago
This was talking on the phone for people who don't like talking on the phone. If that makes any sense.
- ModernMech 6y ago
  This makes perfect sense to me. I don't know what it is about talking on the phone, but it's an extremely anxiety inducing experience for me. I'm generally fine with people, but if I have a choice of walking down the street to talk with them in person or call them on the phone, I will make the walk every time. Best I can figure out it stems from being verbally abused as a teenager when I had a job making cold calls. People are vicious on the phone in a way they never are in person. Some people seem to use strangers on the phone as an opportunity to safely vent whatever pent-up rage they have. And even though people are just as vicious online, it just doesn't have the same bite as it does when it's a human voice filled with rage.
  - progman32 6y ago
    I'm the same way, sans the cold calling experience. Would much rather drive down to talk to someone at the counter vs. calling the business from home.
  - jki275 6y ago
    I don’t have the cold calling experience, but I view phone conversation the same way you do. No idea why - and it baffles my extrovert spouse.
  - account42 6y ago
    > Best I can figure out it stems from being verbally abused as a teenager when I had a job making cold calls. People are vicious on the phone in a way they never are in person. Or maybe people are vicious when they receive unsolicited spam calls.

beowulfey 6y ago

yeah, for me treating im as asynchronous is redundant. that’s why we had email. aim was a phone call. but i also treat it asynchronous these days and might even step away from a conversation mid thought. i hate when i do it but it’s a very bad habit encouraged by the apps. ah well

eznzt 6y ago

I hate that it is asynchronous now. I liked it back before when you talked to someone who was online and you knew he was engaged in the conversation. Now all of that is gone. As you say "I'll just reply later"—I hate that.

foldr 6y ago

The thing is that this makes it almost impossible to chat to people over text these days. If you try it, it's an infuriating experience where you wait several minutes for a reply every time. In the old days, you could actually have a text conversation with someone on MSN messenger.