4 ms·

I found it surprising at the time that instant messaging apps that originated on PCs (ICQ, AIM, Skype, etc...) did not get widely adopted for this role despite

by Zak 2y ago

I found it surprising at the time that instant messaging apps that originated on PCs (ICQ, AIM, Skype, etc...) did not get widely adopted for this role despite most of the well-known ones releasing iOS and Android versions at the time.

hocuspocus 2y ago
ICQ and AIM were pretty much dead already. Microsoft really missed an opportunity, I remember using a third party app for Messenger and the mobile experience wasn't great. Skype was too focused on voice and video calls, not seen as an instant messaging app, even though it could very well have been. The biggest fumble really comes from Google though. I was using Google Talk as my main messaging app on PC, and Android had pretty much everything ready before iOS, including video chat over 3G. However Google went through a pointless revamp with Hangouts and never managed a convincing SMS integration.
- Zak 2y ago
  Hangouts was the default SMS client in Android for a while, and it worked well enough as an SMS client that I never heard anybody complain about it. Much like iMessage, it could upgrade to internet-based messaging if both people in a conversation used it. Where Google went wrong was bowing to pressure from carriers to stop doing that. Carriers had been much more powerful in the past, and I think Google failed to recognize just how fast their influence was waning.
  - hocuspocus 2y ago
    I don't buy it. Google just followed iMessage, only two years later, I don't see why carriers would suddenly have an issue with that. Plus Hangouts has never been a mainstream mobile messaging app, and I was a big user at the time. I worked at Samsung then and I'd bet most Android users never launched Hangouts nor even noticed it was preinstalled. Google killed the integration in 2017 when they started betting on RCS and Google Messages more seriously.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      At the time, Google was in a much weaker position to push against carrier demands, because it didn't have as firm control over Android OEMs. So it was trying to juggle carrier + OEMs + Android and keep everyone happy. Anything that upset one party wasn't going to happen. Only in more recent, Samsung/Pixel-centric times has Google had iPhone-like negotiating weight (and will).
      - hocuspocus 2y ago
        But realistically I don't know why any carrier would give a damn about this. In 2013, SMS was already irrelevant in most of the world. And in the US pretty much everyone had had unlimited texting for a while. Encouraging people towards OTT messaging was beneficial to carriers that were now ubiquitously making money on data packages, not texts/calls.
        Zak 2y ago
        End users are not the only customers for SMS. A large number of automated notifications, confirmations, and 2FA codes are sent that way, and carriers get paid for it.
        hocuspocus 2y ago
        And how is this relevant to Hangouts acting as the default SMS client for a minority of subscribers?
        Zak 2y ago
        If it was nearly every Android device, it wouldn't have been a minority in the mid 2010s. I don't have an authoritative citation, but complaints from carriers is often reported as the reason Google backed away from the default SMS client decision. Here's one example, but I've seen it from other publications: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/11/rip-google-hangouts-googles-last-best-chance-to-compete-with-imessage/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/11/rip-google-hangouts-...
  - lxgr 2y ago
    Do you have any details on that being due to carrier pressure? I remember using Hangouts (and Google Talk before it) with almost everybody in my social circle. It had XMPP interoperability for a while (which let me use it at a computer, even with my phone battery dead, at a time when WhatsApp was available on the phone only) and it otherwise just worked. I never understood why Google went out of their way as much as they did to kill a perfectly fine product in favor of various alternatives that just looked like yet another WhatsApp clone, including all the deficiencies of that (i.e. being single-device only, not using the existing Google account social network etc.)
- jamesrr39 2y ago
  The amount of perfectly functional messaging apps Google has gone through is crazy[1]. Each Google messaging app (GTalk, Hangouts, Meet, etc) is perfectly functional, but with an endless series of migrations, why would you stay around and every several months/year explain to the non-technical family members how the new version of Google's messaging product works? Enter Whatsapp, which has been pretty consistent through the years, and of course guess which one people use. [1]: Of course, it's crazy from a product management perspective - but from a "launch a new product to get the next promotion" perspective...
lotsofpulp 2y ago
Because WhatsApp was the first with password less-login using SMS login. It was dead simple to use. You had a phone, installed Whatsapp, it sent you a verification text that it automatically read and verified to ensure you owned that phone number, and that was your “account”. No user names to remember, no passwords, a completely computer illiterate person could use it, especially if their first device ever was a smartphone. And it worked amazingly well. And there was no spam. I specifically remember sharing contacts being a pain in the ass until WhatsApp came along.
- Zak 2y ago
  I suppose none of the others, which could have leveraged their existing userbase chose to follow suit because the companies that owned them did not have a way to make money from them. WhatsApp didn't either, but startups weren't expected to.
  - ncruces 2y ago
    The initial WhatsApp plan was to charge between $1 and 2€, initially a one time fee paid after a few weeks, then a yearly subscription after one free year. I kinda wish that had paned out. It'd still be hundreds of millions of dollars in yearly revenue. Plus businesses.
    - hocuspocus 2y ago
      The funny thing is that on Android, I never had to pay the fee as the free trial kept getting extended. Only my friends with iPhones paid for WhatsApp, IIRC on iOS it was upfront too!

by Zak 2y ago

hocuspocus 2y ago

ICQ and AIM were pretty much dead already. Microsoft really missed an opportunity, I remember using a third party app for Messenger and the mobile experience wasn't great. Skype was too focused on voice and video calls, not seen as an instant messaging app, even though it could very well have been. The biggest fumble really comes from Google though. I was using Google Talk as my main messaging app on PC, and Android had pretty much everything ready before iOS, including video chat over 3G. However Google went through a pointless revamp with Hangouts and never managed a convincing SMS integration.

Zak 2y ago
Hangouts was the default SMS client in Android for a while, and it worked well enough as an SMS client that I never heard anybody complain about it. Much like iMessage, it could upgrade to internet-based messaging if both people in a conversation used it. Where Google went wrong was bowing to pressure from carriers to stop doing that. Carriers had been much more powerful in the past, and I think Google failed to recognize just how fast their influence was waning.
- hocuspocus 2y ago
  I don't buy it. Google just followed iMessage, only two years later, I don't see why carriers would suddenly have an issue with that. Plus Hangouts has never been a mainstream mobile messaging app, and I was a big user at the time. I worked at Samsung then and I'd bet most Android users never launched Hangouts nor even noticed it was preinstalled. Google killed the integration in 2017 when they started betting on RCS and Google Messages more seriously.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    At the time, Google was in a much weaker position to push against carrier demands, because it didn't have as firm control over Android OEMs. So it was trying to juggle carrier + OEMs + Android and keep everyone happy. Anything that upset one party wasn't going to happen. Only in more recent, Samsung/Pixel-centric times has Google had iPhone-like negotiating weight (and will).
    - hocuspocus 2y ago
      But realistically I don't know why any carrier would give a damn about this. In 2013, SMS was already irrelevant in most of the world. And in the US pretty much everyone had had unlimited texting for a while. Encouraging people towards OTT messaging was beneficial to carriers that were now ubiquitously making money on data packages, not texts/calls.
      - Zak 2y ago
        End users are not the only customers for SMS. A large number of automated notifications, confirmations, and 2FA codes are sent that way, and carriers get paid for it.
        hocuspocus 2y ago
        And how is this relevant to Hangouts acting as the default SMS client for a minority of subscribers?
        Zak 2y ago
        If it was nearly every Android device, it wouldn't have been a minority in the mid 2010s. I don't have an authoritative citation, but complaints from carriers is often reported as the reason Google backed away from the default SMS client decision. Here's one example, but I've seen it from other publications: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/11/rip-google-hangouts-googles-last-best-chance-to-compete-with-imessage/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/11/rip-google-hangouts-...
- lxgr 2y ago
  Do you have any details on that being due to carrier pressure? I remember using Hangouts (and Google Talk before it) with almost everybody in my social circle. It had XMPP interoperability for a while (which let me use it at a computer, even with my phone battery dead, at a time when WhatsApp was available on the phone only) and it otherwise just worked. I never understood why Google went out of their way as much as they did to kill a perfectly fine product in favor of various alternatives that just looked like yet another WhatsApp clone, including all the deficiencies of that (i.e. being single-device only, not using the existing Google account social network etc.)
jamesrr39 2y ago
The amount of perfectly functional messaging apps Google has gone through is crazy[1]. Each Google messaging app (GTalk, Hangouts, Meet, etc) is perfectly functional, but with an endless series of migrations, why would you stay around and every several months/year explain to the non-technical family members how the new version of Google's messaging product works? Enter Whatsapp, which has been pretty consistent through the years, and of course guess which one people use. [1]: Of course, it's crazy from a product management perspective - but from a "launch a new product to get the next promotion" perspective...

lotsofpulp 2y ago

Because WhatsApp was the first with password less-login using SMS login. It was dead simple to use. You had a phone, installed Whatsapp, it sent you a verification text that it automatically read and verified to ensure you owned that phone number, and that was your “account”. No user names to remember, no passwords, a completely computer illiterate person could use it, especially if their first device ever was a smartphone. And it worked amazingly well. And there was no spam. I specifically remember sharing contacts being a pain in the ass until WhatsApp came along.

Zak 2y ago
I suppose none of the others, which could have leveraged their existing userbase chose to follow suit because the companies that owned them did not have a way to make money from them. WhatsApp didn't either, but startups weren't expected to.
- ncruces 2y ago
  The initial WhatsApp plan was to charge between $1 and 2€, initially a one time fee paid after a few weeks, then a yearly subscription after one free year. I kinda wish that had paned out. It'd still be hundreds of millions of dollars in yearly revenue. Plus businesses.
  - hocuspocus 2y ago
    The funny thing is that on Android, I never had to pay the fee as the free trial kept getting extended. Only my friends with iPhones paid for WhatsApp, IIRC on iOS it was upfront too!