4 ms·

> John Gruber... has suggested... instant messaging was a dead-end technology I use Signal and WhatsApp daily. Most people I know use some sort of IM, though f

by Zak 3y ago

> John Gruber... has suggested... instant messaging was a dead-end technology I use Signal and WhatsApp daily. Most people I know use some sort of IM, though for some of them it's only iMessage. It's interesting and a little surprising that none of the PC-based instant messaging services popular in the early 2000s were successful in making the jump to mobile, though some did produce mobile clients.

lintroller 3y ago
Mobile providers had no incentive to let the instant messaging services on their network when they were charging 10 cents per SMS message.
- toast0 3y ago
  I'm pretty sure the major messengers all had integrations with at least US mobile providers. Because if you didn't have a messaging plan, you'd get charged 10 cents per message as it was delivered over SMS. IMHO, the reason a mobile first network was more compelling than a desktop first network is that people tend to have their phones on them, while their desktops tend to be at their desks. For better or worse, you can always reach me on my phone. Tencent developed QQ on desktop and then WeChat on mobile, but afaik, didn't bridge the two networks.
- Zak 3y ago
  The iPhone app store and consumer Android devices both launched in 2008. Mobile providers didn't have a say after that.
  - bozhark 3y ago
    AT&T’s iPhone monopoly?
    - Zak 3y ago
      AT&T did not get a say over what was available in the app store. ICQ, AIM, and Yahoo Messenger all had clients for iOS and Android.
wolpoli 3y ago
It's quite surprising that none of them Desktop leaders were able to leverage their network effect to move to Mobile. Through it's important to note that the mobile leaders today bootstrapped off the phone book. Facebook messenger was quite something through. They bundled messenging into the Facebook app to get the network effect, then use the network effect to get people to install a separate messenger app.
- katbyte 3y ago
  they also now make it impossible (or at least very hard) to use messenger on a phone without installing their app. I rarely use fb except for marketplace and was meeting up with someone, i tried to use a browser like you can on a computer and nope had to install the app
lmm 3y ago
They all sucked. Sometimes it's that simple. Skype was the least bad when you were using it on a phone as well, and so it hung around right up until Zoom came along. But most instant messengers were bad, especially XMPP-based ones, and there was a lot of pressure to use XMPP. That's what killed the whole market.
kalleboo 3y ago
> It's interesting and a little surprising that none of the PC-based instant messaging services popular in the early 2000s were successful in making the jump to mobile I've read that it comes down to how at the time of the shift, companies were realizing that there was just no money in running IM networks, so they were unwilling to invest much in them.

by Zak 3y ago

lintroller 3y ago

Mobile providers had no incentive to let the instant messaging services on their network when they were charging 10 cents per SMS message.

toast0 3y ago
I'm pretty sure the major messengers all had integrations with at least US mobile providers. Because if you didn't have a messaging plan, you'd get charged 10 cents per message as it was delivered over SMS. IMHO, the reason a mobile first network was more compelling than a desktop first network is that people tend to have their phones on them, while their desktops tend to be at their desks. For better or worse, you can always reach me on my phone. Tencent developed QQ on desktop and then WeChat on mobile, but afaik, didn't bridge the two networks.
Zak 3y ago
The iPhone app store and consumer Android devices both launched in 2008. Mobile providers didn't have a say after that.
- bozhark 3y ago
  AT&T’s iPhone monopoly?
  - Zak 3y ago
    AT&T did not get a say over what was available in the app store. ICQ, AIM, and Yahoo Messenger all had clients for iOS and Android.

wolpoli 3y ago

It's quite surprising that none of them Desktop leaders were able to leverage their network effect to move to Mobile. Through it's important to note that the mobile leaders today bootstrapped off the phone book. Facebook messenger was quite something through. They bundled messenging into the Facebook app to get the network effect, then use the network effect to get people to install a separate messenger app.

katbyte 3y ago
they also now make it impossible (or at least very hard) to use messenger on a phone without installing their app. I rarely use fb except for marketplace and was meeting up with someone, i tried to use a browser like you can on a computer and nope had to install the app

lmm 3y ago

They all sucked. Sometimes it's that simple. Skype was the least bad when you were using it on a phone as well, and so it hung around right up until Zoom came along. But most instant messengers were bad, especially XMPP-based ones, and there was a lot of pressure to use XMPP. That's what killed the whole market.

kalleboo 3y ago

> It's interesting and a little surprising that none of the PC-based instant messaging services popular in the early 2000s were successful in making the jump to mobile I've read that it comes down to how at the time of the shift, companies were realizing that there was just no money in running IM networks, so they were unwilling to invest much in them.