

Ask HN: Is email "modern" technology? - alanthonyc

During a presentation at work recently, I made an offhand comment about email being "semi-modern," along the lines of the telephone.  I got a relatively strong (negative) reaction to what I thought was a pretty benign comment.<p>I've noticed that people seem intimidated by the rush of new technologies coming out recently, especially web 2.0 stuff.  These are people who are considered technologically proficient (although perhaps not necessarily by readers of this forum).<p>I think it's pretty obvious and probably also empirically provable that email can be considered relatively primitive compared to newer forms of communication.  What do you think?
======
alanthonyc
Maybe my wording is a little too antagonistic. “Primitive” is a strong word,
but I simply meant it in a relative sense: there are other methods more
modern.

Also, to brk's point, I am in no way advocating replacing email. Email didn't
replace the telephone, handwritten notes or face-to-face speech, it augmented
them.

But can it really be argued that email is the most modern form of
communication? Every innovation up to this point has reached critical mass,
and then subsequently been supplanted in less time than the previous. Basic
writing took millenia, the printing press took centuries, the telephone took
decades. At this point, email is a few decades old and already mainstream.
It's due to be overtaken by the latest new thing, of which there are multiple
candidates:

* Discussion Forums * Instant Messaging * Wikis * News Aggregation Sites * Real-Time Information Streams

Again, let me emphasize that I do not think email should be replaced. But to a
lot of people, email is the be-all and end-all of modern communications. This
is hardly the case. It's more like the beginning, the starting point and the
basis. There are plenty of sophisticated tools at hand that can be used to
solve specific problems which email is ill-suited to address.

~~~
tokenadult
_There are plenty of sophisticated tools at hand that can be used to solve
specific problems which email is ill-suited to address._

I'm still politely requesting more specifics here.

~~~
alanthonyc
Example 1 – To have a public debate about the relative merits of email as a
form of communication versus other forms, both older and newer: Discussion
Forum.

Example 2 – Assume a decision was made to design a new system to supplant
email. A metaphor for a whiteboard would be ideal to have multiple people
involved in the design of that system: A Wiki

Example 3 – Assume a mission critical time sensitive deployment of a new
system. Involved parties are geographically distant, but need to be kept up to
date on a minute-by-minute basis: Yammer (private microblog platform)

Each of these can be solved using email, but the tools I've outlined are much
better at performing each task.

I'm not sure if you're making me jump through these hoops just for the sake of
it or if these examples really are not obvious. If someone like yourself, for
whom I can only assume these tools are familiar, don't see these benefits,
then it's no wonder that the general population don't see their utility
either.

------
brk
_I think it's pretty obvious and probably also empirically provable that email
can be considered relatively primitive compared to newer forms of
communication._

Care to elaborate?

What modern form of communication allows you to:

-Send a message using a basic plain text format

-Send a message using an advanced layout (while also offering a method for people who just want a plain text message to see that version)

-Attach a document, drawing or file to your message

-Send a message to one or several recipients simultaneously at your choosing

-Participate in this communications infrastructure with your own servers (I think this last one is particularly significant).

I don't think that people are "intimidated" by some of the new technologies,
they just fail to see the benefit or improvement. You could also say that the
majority of these things are not really new "technologies", but moreso new
presentation layers over basically "primitive" technologies.

------
tokenadult
I still think Michael Kinsley had it best, explaining email in a television
interview back when only a minority of Americans had email (when I already did
have email):

"Email has most of the advantages of the telephone, and most of the advantages
of postal mail, and few of the disadvantages of either." Email is wonderful.
Here I am on a Web-based discussion forum (HN is not email), but I still use
email for a LOT of communication, and I wish I could use it for more.

 _I think it's pretty obvious and probably also empirically provable that
email can be considered relatively primitive compared to newer forms of
communication._

Please show your work and give the empirical proof. I'd be glad to learn
something from you.

------
varaon
Consider that most Web 2.0 forms of communication (i.e. Twitter, Facebook and
the like) are still closed gardens. Yes, they have APIs, but they still hold
the keys and own the technology. Anyone can set up an email server and have it
talk to anyone else.

~~~
alanthonyc
This is probably the most relevant comment to the discussion I was trying to
raise. I don't necessarily agree though.

Almost anyone, especially any IT department, has the technical knowledge to
set up a wiki, for instance. Sites like yammer.com make setting up a private
microblog platform within anyone's reach. And yes, even my mom has a Facebook
account.

At one of my clients, the issue they are having is more related to the
cultural acceptance of using the wiki than the technical difficulties in
setting it up. Anyone visiting this site knows how wikis work and for what
uses they can be applied. To the general population, "wiki" is just another
weird internet word.

------
csbartus
email is obsolete: too slow for communication + too weak for storage + too
insecure for id management

