
Texting Means Never Having to Say Goodbye - imartin2k
https://slate.com/technology/2019/03/texting-slack-internet-conversation-goodbye.html
======
romwell
It really depends on whether you are having an actual _realtime conversation_
with a person; that comes with expectations of full attention, immediate
responses and usually has good-byes too.

On the other hand, email or forum threads don't have good-byes either, and
neither did many IRC chatrooms.

IM used to be akin to a telephone conversation, now it's more like email
chain. This is necessary, because we don't have short windows that we dedicate
to being online anymore (during which the expectations are higher). If we
treated all incoming messages as telephone calls, that'd take all our time.
The result is that IM has a priority just above an email, but below everything
else (phones calls, offline things happening, etc).

~~~
dmitryminkovsky
But how can you not have a realtime conversation if every online medium is
realtime and the only thing making it not realtime is maybe your self-control,
or that your battery died? In this sense, I'm not aware of any non-realtime
media (which is why I created one).

~~~
cousin_it
Nice! So you've built "non-realtime email" which gets delivered once a day.
Maybe it would make sense to bundle it with its opposite: "realtime texting".
Basically it would work like phone calls, but for text. One person initiates
with a wordless ping, the other responds, then they can exchange texts, there
can be at most one conversation per person at a time, and if you close or
unfocus the app for any reason, the conversation stops.

I think these two things together could cover most of my personal
communication needs, though it for work communications I'd still need faster-
than-daily email.

~~~
dmitryminkovsky
Hi cousin_it. Thank you! Not sure about the realtime text bundling. I like the
idea, but I'm afraid it would encroach upon the non-instant space the app
provides.

> though it for work communications I'd still need faster-than-daily email.

This is the most requested feature. Will definitely head in this direction.

~~~
romwell
Hi Dmitry!

First, thanks for making the platform. I find it interesting, because it
mirrors how I use email with an email client, especially when traveling:
retrieve messages - write responses later - send them whenever.

To that end, I have two considerations:

1)The defining features of your service (daily collection / sending) are
easily client-side. I can already configure my desktop email client to behave
like pony.gg with a couple of clicks.

So it would make a lot of sense, I think, for you to release an _email app_.
Yes, there are many email apps, but for people who can't resist setting email
retrieval interval to <5minutes, less is more.

Then the users will be able to keep their @bigcorp.com / @work.org address,
while having the full benefit of your service.

2)On the other hand, you can also enforce these features server-side, allowing
people to use their favorite IMAP clients. Just allow, say, one 1hr window in
a 24hr time span for retrieval, and the same for sending (so people in
different timezones can all get their email at 7am, but won't be able to get
new messages after getting their email for the first time that day; same with
sending).

Are there any plans to have 3rd part email client support?

~~~
dmitryminkovsky
Hi Roman,

Thank you so much.

1) This is on the way. For a first version, this webapp actually wraps nicely
in Cordova, and I intend to publish it in the App/Play stores. Alternatively,
you will be able to install it as a PWA. Either way, you will be able to
compose offline. I think it would also work well in Electron.

2) This is a bit tricky because Pony is more "email compatible" than it is
email. Concretely, (i) Each message can only have one recipient. (ii) There is
no subject line (iii) You send things by putting them in the Outbox and
letting time pass. I've given it some thought and I think there are ways to
smooth all this over and adapt it to IMAP, but I think the result might be
clumsy.

And there are "philosophical" considerations as well. Pony provides you with a
non-instant space to communicate that is separate from the instant everything
else. I think combining these two spaces would possibly take something away
from the Pony experience?

> The defining features of your service (daily collection / sending)

By the way, while that is a feature, I don't think it's the defining feature.
I think the defining feature is providing a space where people can correspond
reflectively instead of reactively. When you've got an email client configured
some way, you can always unconfigure it. With Pony, there is no way to make it
non-instant. So unless you are rushing to make a pickup, there is reason you'd
be rushing to hit send when you compose a message, or worried more messages
might come and distract you. There are other apps that batch your email, but
there are no apps that give you space and freedom to think like Pony.

------
abhinai
There was a time when everyone I knew was on Yahoo or MSN messenger. Then
suddenly everyone stopped using messengers. The biggest problem with
messengers was _synchronous_ communication. Once someone started talking to
you, you pretty much had to stay glued to the computer until the conversation
ended. It was great for some conversations but a big inconvenience for the
most part. Most people started hiding behind the _invisible mode_ until there
came a time when everyone was invisible and you didn't have anyone to talk to.

Next gen. communication tools like fb messenger, WhatsApp etc. solved this
problem by making the default expectation _asynchronous_. It was a huge step
in evolution of messaging.

~~~
ubercow13
It feels like a regression. I don't really enjoy conversations with these
tools. It's not as fun to converse with someone over the course of days when
each message is some hours after the last. It is also not clear when people
might want to talk. Synchronous IM was better because it was clear when people
were available to talk, and when they were they would be attentive enough to
have a real-time, fulfilling conversation. I haven't experienced that since
MSN died.

Now everyone is always available on their phone, but also not truly available
at any time. Presence indicators don't mean much any more because people may
be online just to view Facebook, or on their phone only momentarily.

I think another contributing factor to the decline in quality of IM
conversations is the use of phone keyboards. They are so much worse to type on
than a real keyboard that I believe it changes the nature and quality of
conversations people have considerably, for the worse.

~~~
dmortin
> It is also not clear when people might want to talk. Synchronous IM was
> better because it was clear when people were available to talk

That's why async is great, because people can answer whenever they like.

> when they were they would be attentive enough to have a real-time,
> fulfilling conversation

For this kind of conversation IM is not a good medium. In case of a real time,
attentive convesation a phone call is much better, isn't it?

~~~
ubercow13
They can answer whenever they like, but when I choose to read their reply I
will have lost some of my train of thought or maybe lost interest in the
topic. It doesn't allow for the same quality, or at least type, of discourse
in my experience.

>IM is not a good medium

It certainly was a good medium - I had lots of great conversations on old IM
services and so did countless others. See this related thread from the other
day [1]

You could talk to many people at the same time, unlike a phone call. You could
more easily do it at the same time as your homework, watching a film, or doing
something else on the internet.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19370281](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19370281)

------
elliotec
I have many long distance friends that I keep in touch with and have for
years. Some I haven't seen IRL in nearly a decade. Looking now, almost none of
our text conversations have any sign of "goodbye," sometimes picking up even
months later on the same topic as the last thing we were discussing. Very
interesting.

Side note though, my favorite part of this article, ironically, is the part in
the first paragraph which she illustrates as something young people will
dismiss: That Salt Lake City has the longest city blocks in the nation. I have
lived here my whole life and have always known we have mega huge blocks, but
wasn't aware they were the biggest in the nation, and it appears they could be
the biggest in the world. This has interesting implications[0] and as someone
very interested in urban planning I was taken aback by this and thought it
funny that she used it as an example of something people find dismissable.

[0] [https://www.governing.com/columns/urban-notebook/gov-salt-
la...](https://www.governing.com/columns/urban-notebook/gov-salt-lake-city-
extra-wide-streets.html)

------
jaysonelliot
This was a problem as soon as ICQ and other instant messengers appeared in the
'90s.

Now, the issue seems to have resolved itself thanks to the emoji. Whether it's
a Slack or a text, the appearance of a thumbs up emoji is a friendly, succinct
way to say "we're done now."

~~~
johnchristopher
I believe it's a particularity but french speaking people use `++` to end the
conversation.

It comes from `À plus` which roughly translate to `See you later` but uses
plus sign because of the sound.

It's even funnier because you used to write a single `+` then the other party
replied with `++` but that usage has fallen and I only see the double plus
sign these days.

~~~
scarface74
+++

Was the same command to take an AT compatible modem from data mode to command
mode and cause it to disconnect. Are you sure that’s not where it originated?

~~~
johnchristopher
Yeah, it was used on IRC and then on messenger/AIM/ICQ by kids who couldn't
have known about such commands. There are some slight variations around like
"pluche" for comical effects. That and the fact I never saw it outside french
speaking chats.

There could be a tiny chance that it comes from something else but that's
highly unlikely.

------
akeck
An ex-friend and I never signed off. We had an ongoing conversation that died
down to only me writing messages, and then I stopped. It's still there in
WhatsApp. Frozen in time. (The person is fine and posts public updates on FB
and elsewhere.)

~~~
elliotec
Was it the lack of response that made them an ex-friend?

~~~
kakarot
The lack of multiple responses over an extended period of time seems like as
big a hint as you can get.

If you're standing next to someone and they ignore your attempts at getting
their attention, how long should you continue before finding something better
to do?

~~~
elliotec
I think the point of this article is the difference between standing next to
someone and online conversations. While I agree that is a major hint,
especially in certain cases (especially in the sense of the stalker-esque men
hounding women through DMs on social media), I've had very long periods of
non-communication with long-distance friends I still consider "close" that
pick up much later, sometimes with multiple messages on either side with
varying degrees of response.

~~~
kakarot
It just depends on the nature of the message. If one side is just amassing a
list of things or a complete idea to digest on the recepient's own time, with
the mutual understanding that people lead busy lives, it's a bit different
than say, someone repeatedly ignoring a particular request or general attempts
to start a live conversation.

------
dheera
The one I hate is the "are you around?" / "are you there now?" type message.

I hate synchronous online communication. Just ask the question, and I'll
respond some hours later when I have time. If you want synchronous, schedule
me in person.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Nah.

Some questions are time relevant. I need an answer before x, unless y, if z. I
don't want to write all the caveats every unnecessary time. Then how long do I
sit around in case you certainly, maybe, probably, possibly got it?

Since texts and earliest days of ICQ just about everyone I know opens with
ping, answer with ack or nack / silence. Super easy to decide whether to even
ask... :)

~~~
dheera
Well in general it's always a nack when I get that kind of message. I don't
want to be pressured into starting a synchronous conversation if I don't know
what the conversation is going to be about.

"Hey got a minute?" => no

"Hey got a minute for A?" => yes

"Hey got a minute for B?" => no

~~~
wool_gather
Agree, and a key point here being that the colloquial "minute" can be a very
different actual amount of time for A and B.

------
fatnoah
This was one of the challenges my company faced when building a product that
enabled SMS as a support channel. SMS conversations never "end" in the way
that webchats do and also have a different ebb-and-flow. Completing a "call"
involves spurts of near real-time messaging along with large time gaps (hours
or days). Our early customers also spent a lot of time convincing their own
customers that they were talking to real humans and not bots.

Traditional call-center metrics were tough to apply though CSAT improvements
were dramatic and almost instantaneous. Despite the lack of features compared
to web chat, people really responded to SMS. I'm sure that was due to
convenience (people are in their SMS/messaging client anyway) and that our
customers staffed the lines with real people, rather than bots.

------
gaahrdner
A.K.A. "ghosting" in online dating parlance

------
btbuildem
I appreciate the asynchronous mode of comunication that text messages afford.
Conversations there do come to an end sometimes -- but usually that means a
big change or end of the real-world connection between the two people
messaging.

