3 ms·

Except that's not really what you said. You said "This is silly, it doesn't account for the many, many axes of communication". Then you listed these axes with

Except that's not really what you said. You said "This is silly, it doesn't account for the many, many axes of communication". Then you listed these axes without explaining how they weren't accounted for. Then you reduced the product to "screw email, it's a chat! With Widgets!". Then you listed out a bunch of existing products that actually don't account for all the axes of communication. And then admitted towards the end of all that that you actually "have no idea how it fits well into the framework of communication types". All without having ever used the product, or having any exposure to it besides reading two short articles about it.

cschneid 17y ago
Meh, not going to argue with you over a product neither of us have ever used. You're right, I took stronger than needed stances, and it's most likely that this will be a very cool technology. I am just pointing out that all-in-one tools don't really solve communication problems, and that there is a ton to consider when talking about how information is presented, stored, and discussed between people.
- stcredzero 17y ago
  Didn't RSS readers solve a problem by aggregating disparate streams? Granted, the problem is a lot bigger here. Instead of aggregating/organizing lots of sources using only 2 protocols, you are trying to do the same for many protocols and many models. But I suspect this is why it would be a big win -- the users find this daunting as well!
- spot 17y ago
  all-in-one does solve the problem of moving a conversation between all the different and incompatible existing systems. seamless integration is a huge win.
  - jmtulloss 17y ago
    This was the biggest takeaway for me too. It's a way of easily moving data from just about any communication system to just about any other communication system.
  - jsz0 17y ago
    Do you think it will really be seamless? That's where almost all of these types of all-in-one deals fail for me. They are completely seamless if you want to play by the rules they set and the interfaces they build. When you want to break out of that mold they're not really so seamless anymore. I know it's an open protocol and blah blah but I'm not sure I want to spend all this time making a screwdriver into a hammer when I already have a perfectly fine hammer.

cschneid 17y ago

Meh, not going to argue with you over a product neither of us have ever used. You're right, I took stronger than needed stances, and it's most likely that this will be a very cool technology. I am just pointing out that all-in-one tools don't really solve communication problems, and that there is a ton to consider when talking about how information is presented, stored, and discussed between people.

stcredzero 17y ago
Didn't RSS readers solve a problem by aggregating disparate streams? Granted, the problem is a lot bigger here. Instead of aggregating/organizing lots of sources using only 2 protocols, you are trying to do the same for many protocols and many models. But I suspect this is why it would be a big win -- the users find this daunting as well!
spot 17y ago
all-in-one does solve the problem of moving a conversation between all the different and incompatible existing systems. seamless integration is a huge win.
- jmtulloss 17y ago
  This was the biggest takeaway for me too. It's a way of easily moving data from just about any communication system to just about any other communication system.
- jsz0 17y ago
  Do you think it will really be seamless? That's where almost all of these types of all-in-one deals fail for me. They are completely seamless if you want to play by the rules they set and the interfaces they build. When you want to break out of that mold they're not really so seamless anymore. I know it's an open protocol and blah blah but I'm not sure I want to spend all this time making a screwdriver into a hammer when I already have a perfectly fine hammer.