5 ms·

SMS is a totally different protocol. It's a 1 to 1 framework, not a 1 to many, by default.

ethbr0 6y ago
It's a 1:1 framework, because it didn't evolve. There's nothing fundamentally limiting SMS to being stuck to that. That SMS didn't add better 1:something capabilities is an indictment of post-1995 cellular carrier pricing models and greed. They could have prevented and owned the entire messaging space, all of which is essentially an attempt to recreate basic messaging functionality that SMS lacks.
- rchaud 6y ago
  You seem to be confusing group chat with Twitter. And who exactly would "own the messaging space"? SMS is a protocol available to any carrier in any country.
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    I'm viewing both as a way to transport short messages from senders to receivers On the search side, there's nothing stopping a carrier from indexing public SMSs and making them discoverable. We're not talking about rocket science, in the basic realization [0]. I'm not sure why HN is looking at these things like (short blobs of text) are completely different than (short blobs of text). Everything built around them is plumbing. Complicated, difficult plumbing, but plumbing nonetheless. I'm all ears as to why providing an SMS service that supports all of Twitter's features would have been technically impossible... say, circa-2000. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
    - darkerside 6y ago
      It wasn't impossible, but nobody did it. The lightbulb had been possible for many years before Edison commercialized it and made it feasible for the mainstream. The way you are looking at things, the iphone isn't really an upgrade over the blackberry or palm pilot.
      - ethbr0 6y ago
        Palm didn't have 6+ years of iPod / iTunes profits to plow into R&D. And Blackberry's core customer didn't yet know they were interested in something like an iPhone: a mobile Bloomberg terminal was the apple of their eye. I think we're in agreement while disagreeing. My fascination isn't so much that the phone companies couldn't do it (because they could), but that they didn't (because they couldn't even imagine it). Props to Twitter for envisioning the product, but "What if?" phone companies had {Twitter, Facebook} is an entirely plausible, albeit organizationally-unlikely present. It would have required them to pivot their thinking from maximally taxing use of capital-intensive investments to growing scalable platforms, but stranger things have happened. And the internet's growth was already obvious in that time frame.
        darkerside 6y ago
        We're really not agreeing because I don't find it surprising that phone companies didn't invent Twitter, just like I don't find it surprising that Blackberry didn't invent the iphone
    - putnambr 6y ago
      You're right that the protocol is nothing fancy, and that's what makes the 'plumbing' the most important factor. Twitter could be implemented as a pub/sub message queue. That's cool, but nobody would use it if there weren't a nice client and a controlled network to use it on.

It's a 1:1 framework, because it didn't evolve. There's nothing fundamentally limiting SMS to being stuck to that. That SMS didn't add better 1:something capabilities is an indictment of post-1995 cellular carrier pricing models and greed. They could have prevented and owned the entire messaging space, all of which is essentially an attempt to recreate basic messaging functionality that SMS lacks.

rchaud 6y ago
You seem to be confusing group chat with Twitter. And who exactly would "own the messaging space"? SMS is a protocol available to any carrier in any country.
- ethbr0 6y ago
  I'm viewing both as a way to transport short messages from senders to receivers On the search side, there's nothing stopping a carrier from indexing public SMSs and making them discoverable. We're not talking about rocket science, in the basic realization [0]. I'm not sure why HN is looking at these things like (short blobs of text) are completely different than (short blobs of text). Everything built around them is plumbing. Complicated, difficult plumbing, but plumbing nonetheless. I'm all ears as to why providing an SMS service that supports all of Twitter's features would have been technically impossible... say, circa-2000. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
  - darkerside 6y ago
    It wasn't impossible, but nobody did it. The lightbulb had been possible for many years before Edison commercialized it and made it feasible for the mainstream. The way you are looking at things, the iphone isn't really an upgrade over the blackberry or palm pilot.
    - ethbr0 6y ago
      Palm didn't have 6+ years of iPod / iTunes profits to plow into R&D. And Blackberry's core customer didn't yet know they were interested in something like an iPhone: a mobile Bloomberg terminal was the apple of their eye. I think we're in agreement while disagreeing. My fascination isn't so much that the phone companies couldn't do it (because they could), but that they didn't (because they couldn't even imagine it). Props to Twitter for envisioning the product, but "What if?" phone companies had {Twitter, Facebook} is an entirely plausible, albeit organizationally-unlikely present. It would have required them to pivot their thinking from maximally taxing use of capital-intensive investments to growing scalable platforms, but stranger things have happened. And the internet's growth was already obvious in that time frame.
      - darkerside 6y ago
        We're really not agreeing because I don't find it surprising that phone companies didn't invent Twitter, just like I don't find it surprising that Blackberry didn't invent the iphone
  - putnambr 6y ago
    You're right that the protocol is nothing fancy, and that's what makes the 'plumbing' the most important factor. Twitter could be implemented as a pub/sub message queue. That's cool, but nobody would use it if there weren't a nice client and a controlled network to use it on.