For crying out loud, how did messaging get so fragmented?

Just a few of the messaging apps trying to get your attention Source: the Guardian

Just a few of the messaging apps trying to get your attention.
Source: the Guardian

In the last few years, mobile messaging apps have been expanding like crazy. It seems like every slight variation of messaging has a different app and they’re all thriving. The app audience is differentiated by usage preferences, demographics, anonymity, social network interoperability or geography. The latter determines local communication regulation, communication pricing, availability and cost of various smartphones. All drive the adoption of a wide variety of messaging apps.

In theory, this is a good thing. Many products meeting many different needs of many different users. The Guardian was even able to write a post about what your messaging app says about you. Cute. And they only mentioned nine different apps, there are plenty more, such as apps tied to email accounts including the widely-used Google Hangouts/Chat and Microsoft’s and Yahoo’s Messengers.

That’s why in practice the fragmentation and over-specialization have gotten frustrating. Instead of thinking “I want to chat with person X” you have to think “what platform is X on and can I chat with her” and launch the appropriate app.

Compare this to phones. Earlier this week I wrote about one of the greatest changes to phones since the last earthquake here in California: the fact that everyone now has one personal phone number (aka their mobile) that goes with them everywhere. If you want to talk to X, all you have to do is dial their mobile number and whether it’s a local one or one halfway across the world, it will reach them (and pretty cheaply, I might add.) You’ll go through numerous technical providers on the way, from your local mobile service provider, through the state and national exchanges, through the international exchanges, maybe an underwater cable or two, then another national exchange, and finally another local mobile service provider. All these exchanges are managed by different entities, some commercial, some state-owned, yet they all manage to get along. With messaging, in comparison, your desired connection X must be on the same messaging platform as you in order to be contacted.

Yes, I realize that there are disadvantages of phone communication: the federal agencies are involved and historical pricing was extremely expensive. Even today the taxes and fees paid for mobile and landline phones is significant. The messaging apps are mostly free and if not free, very cheap. They also bypass many of the old phone charges imposed by the aforementioned federal agencies. Also, the phone system was/is very rigid. Either play by its rules or don’t use it. It does what it does well, but it doesn’t lend itself to personalization or even geographical localization. Yet it’s extremely beneficial to messaging apps to be closed. It drives more users and faster grown. Why would they create features that could weaken this competitive advantage?

So is that our choice? Unified and feature-limited but costly vs fragmented and feature-laden but free? I hope not. I think that the messaging platform that will provide (somewhat contradictorily) a platform-agnostic app for one-to-one chats may just win this war.

 

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “For crying out loud, how did messaging get so fragmented?

  1. This is something I have been thinking about recently too. While Trillian does a fantastic job of integrating the services into one app, they are still all seperate services and by using Trillian you lose some of the features. I think what really needs to happen is someone needs to set up a platform where users have one profile, then messaging clients tie into that. If you want to add a person to your client you just add them by their ID (email address?) then the platform hosting the ID’s communicates back what client the user is currently using and what features that client supports.

    This would allow basic messaging between users on any service, but still allow companies to develop their own feature-rich services that only work within their network.

    • I haven’t used Trillian for a while, and never as a mobile app. They used to offer some sort of unity in messaging, true.
      I think that today the different companies won’t cooperate, even if it is beneficial to the users. I wonder they’d buy in to the type of solution you’re suggesting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s