3 ms·

If I send 50 SMS to someone who is charged 10c per message, I have cost them $5.00. So I should care whether I send them an SMS vs. an email. Someone without a

If I send 50 SMS to someone who is charged 10c per message, I have cost them $5.00. So I should care whether I send them an SMS vs. an email. Someone without a data plan doesn't have constant access to email. Maybe they only check it on a computer every few days. So if I want to send an instant message, SMS might be necessary. Randomly sending an email vs. an SMS does not "just work". Nor does forcing each person to communicate to a computer some elaborate policy for how to reach them best.

stcredzero 14y ago
> If I send 50 SMS to someone who is charged 10c per message, I have cost them $5.00. So I should care whether I send them an SMS vs. an email. Yes. You're supporting my point. > Someone without a data plan doesn't have constant access to email. Maybe they only check it on a computer every few days. So if I want to send an instant message, SMS might be necessary. > Randomly sending an email vs. an SMS does not "just work". Again, yes, this is it exactly. Things right now are very far from it "just works." Things are horrendously complex, and it often sucks for one reason or another. Some people can manage all of this complexity in their heads, but that's certainly not true of everybody. What's needed is an integrated vertical. > Nor does forcing each person to communicate to a computer some elaborate policy for how to reach them best. True, that, though being able to set that just once might be better for some of the tech savvy than having to keep track of it all. That wouldn't fit everyone, though. What if someone could communicate their preferences to something like Siri after the fact, with a machine learning system adjusting preferences taking into account all of the communication stakeholders?
mike-cardwell 14y ago
Paying to receive an SMS makes absolutely no sense. Here in the UK, we pay to send them, not to receive them.
- pixelbath 14y ago
  It's counted as one message each for the sender and receiver in the US. We are then billed simply by that number.
  - stcredzero 14y ago
    Conspiracy theories are bunk. That fact that US citizens stand for SMS double billing is the best proof that we're sheeple.
    - glanch 14y ago
      I don't know anyone who doesn't have an unlimited texting plan.
    - freehunter 14y ago
      >the best proof that we're powerless. More accurate. People need to communicate, and SMS is a good way to do that. Would we like it to be cheaper? Of course. There have been numerous lawsuit attempts, petitions, and boycotts. Doesn't matter. There's nothing we can do to change it. If everyone just stopped using it, they'd bundle it in with a package you had no choice but to buy. If you just abstained from a cell phone, you'd be in more trouble than you'd have been 20 years ago since payphones and emergency phones no longer exist. It's not that people pay it and shut up about it, it's that people pay it because there's no other real option.

stcredzero 14y ago

> If I send 50 SMS to someone who is charged 10c per message, I have cost them $5.00. So I should care whether I send them an SMS vs. an email. Yes. You're supporting my point. > Someone without a data plan doesn't have constant access to email. Maybe they only check it on a computer every few days. So if I want to send an instant message, SMS might be necessary. > Randomly sending an email vs. an SMS does not "just work". Again, yes, this is it exactly. Things right now are very far from it "just works." Things are horrendously complex, and it often sucks for one reason or another. Some people can manage all of this complexity in their heads, but that's certainly not true of everybody. What's needed is an integrated vertical. > Nor does forcing each person to communicate to a computer some elaborate policy for how to reach them best. True, that, though being able to set that just once might be better for some of the tech savvy than having to keep track of it all. That wouldn't fit everyone, though. What if someone could communicate their preferences to something like Siri after the fact, with a machine learning system adjusting preferences taking into account all of the communication stakeholders?

mike-cardwell 14y ago

Paying to receive an SMS makes absolutely no sense. Here in the UK, we pay to send them, not to receive them.

pixelbath 14y ago
It's counted as one message each for the sender and receiver in the US. We are then billed simply by that number.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  Conspiracy theories are bunk. That fact that US citizens stand for SMS double billing is the best proof that we're sheeple.
  - glanch 14y ago
    I don't know anyone who doesn't have an unlimited texting plan.
  - freehunter 14y ago
    >the best proof that we're powerless. More accurate. People need to communicate, and SMS is a good way to do that. Would we like it to be cheaper? Of course. There have been numerous lawsuit attempts, petitions, and boycotts. Doesn't matter. There's nothing we can do to change it. If everyone just stopped using it, they'd bundle it in with a package you had no choice but to buy. If you just abstained from a cell phone, you'd be in more trouble than you'd have been 20 years ago since payphones and emergency phones no longer exist. It's not that people pay it and shut up about it, it's that people pay it because there's no other real option.