
The fall and rise and rise of chat networks - dineshp2
http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/02/the-fall-and-rise-and-rise-and-rise-of-chat-networks/
======
CydeWeys
Did it feel very weird to anyone else that some of the most important chat
protocols ever to have existed were not even mentioned once in the article, in
favor of various startup apps that many people have never even heard of?

Any history of chat networks needs to include BBSes, IRC, ICQ, and Google Talk
(now Hangouts).

~~~
condescendence
I skimmed it, didn't see IRC or ICQ and didn't read the rest. Just another
filler article from Ars Tech...

~~~
digi_owl
ICQ get a mention in passing, but the story seems to begin with MSN Messenger.

Not surprised, as i think MS was quite aggressive in pushing it. After all,
the early version came bundled with Windows XP, iirc. And you were greeted
with a signup/login dialog on first boot.

This is not that different from how MS pushed IE back in the day, or grabbed
the office network out from under Novell's nose back in the day.

And btw, i feel to some degree MSN Messenger ruined the net. Before then there
was thriving local IRC channels for the smallest of places. But come MSNM
people started exchanging contact info for it, and the net turned "clique-y".

~~~
Outdoorsman
MSN Chat...looked for that...didn't see it...

Had many memorable chats at "philosophy and absurdity" and "poetry shack"....

All gone....all gone...

------
jerf
Chat sure has come a long way, yes indeed. Why, once it was a console app,
which all look the same, then it made the _huge_ transition to GUI apps, which
once you look past rounded corners and profession emoticons, essentially all
look the same and have nearly the same features. And in the future, we are
sure to witness a variety of additional chat networks with pretty much the
same features.

Yes, what a journey it has taken... from... console app to GUI app. What a
journey indeed.

~~~
umanwizard
In modern chat apps like FB Messenger or WeChat, you can hail a taxi, send
money, send your current location, send a variety of stickers/gifs, send
disappearing messages, send pixellated messages you have to pay to unpixelate
(only in WeChat as far as I know), among other things.

Regardless of what you think of these features, modern chat apps are certainly
very different from IRC.

~~~
bcook
Are all those actions considered "chat" features?

I am probably old fashioned, but I prefer separation of services. If a taxi
driver was on IRC, sure, I could "hail" him. I could post my current GPS
location to anyone I please. Gifs & vid (links) are just as easily shared.

Yeah, I understand integration, but... I curmudgeonly fight it. I hope I am
being Unix-like by striving for separation of services, but I am probably just
being stubborn. :(

~~~
umanwizard
I tried to ward off this exact sort of comment with the line "regardless of
what you think of these features". I don't feel like getting into a debate
about whether the millions of non-tech teenagers using chat apps should care
about The UNIX Philosophy (TM). I just wanted to point out that, rightly or
wrongly, they're very different now, contrary to popular HN belief.

------
gsibble
I find it very odd how chat apps (AIM, MSN, etc.) died and gave rise
to.....chat apps (WhatsApp, WeChat, FBM). I'm still not sure what caused the
mass migration.

~~~
skewart
A number of other responses are suggesting that the explanation is all about
the switch to mobile. I'd argue it was less about the platform transition
itself and more that people misjudged what behavior that transition would
enable. People generally thought the future was voice and video and text was
of the past. Few people thought that one of the smartpjone's most powerful
features would be a semi-decent typing experience.

When I think back to 2008, sure, geeks used irc, but for most people the
thought of typing messages in a chat room seemed hopelessly anachronistic. It
wasn't something you do on your fancy new iPhone. Siri, released in 2011,
seems driven in part by this perspective, and a vision that the future will be
voice-based.

The fact that a lot of people actually prefer texting kinda took the tech
industry by surprise. People thought the more advanced technology that more
accurately reproduced a conversation with another person would dominate. It
turns out that the more psychologically comfortable technogy won, which I
think is often the case.

Of course, there are a lot of other reasons why apps like WhatsApp and WeChat
have succeeded in developing markets that more driven by local infrastructure
and economics.

~~~
caf
_The fact that a lot of people actually prefer texting kinda took the tech
industry by surprise._

And not for the first time, either. SMS was originally just a kind of
afterthought, and the original GSM phone UIs de-emphasised it strongly (eg.
hidden away several levels deep within menus, and some early Nokias I remember
couldn't even send SMS at all - only receive!). The industry was entirely
unprepared for how it took off.

------
livatlantis
Okay, I have to ask: it's been years since I came across someone else who'd
heard of (nevermind used) Odigo[1]. Anyone remember that?

It was one of the most beautiful applications I'd used, one that mixed magical
fantasy with something purely functional. It _got_ affective design a decade
before the industry started started getting interested in it gave it a name.
If I remember correctly, it even had a beautiful on-boarding experience with
lush imagery and sound effects. As a kid, I got to meet people from all around
the world, imagined their lives (you created an avatar but everything else was
just information you chose to disclose, or not) -- it was just fantastic.

And then it vanished.

Anyone?

1: Some images to give you an idea of what it was like:
[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=odigo+messenger&ia=images&iax=1](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=odigo+messenger&ia=images&iax=1)

~~~
alexvoda
I did not remember the name but that picture sure brought back memories. I
remember trying it out. Never actually used it though because of network
effects. Everyone I knew was on Y! Messenger or as we used to call it mess.

------
firasd
I was just thinking about this. In 2010 (when many people were building
GroupOn clones) I don't think people thinking about tech really saw this
coming: that chat apps would not just be successful at such large scale but
also subsume VOIP, ecommerce... Otherwise large companies would have valued
and focused on their older chat apps like BlackBerry Messenger, MSN Messenger,
AIM. Even actively used apps like Google Hangouts and Skype didn't really go
aggressively after the user base now held by WhatsApp, WeChat, Facebook
Messenger.

~~~
PakG1
Blackberry's former co-CEO saw it coming. But he lost a battle to reposition
the company in a way where he thought they could go for the opportunity. That
being said, if he had won that battle, who knows whether or not he would have
actually succeeded in his vision though.

[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/the-
inside...](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/the-inside-story-
of-why-blackberry-is-failing/article14563602/?page=all)

Relevant quote:

 _Inside RIM, the brash Mr. Balsillie had championed a bold strategy to re-
establish the company’s place at the forefront of mobile communications. The
plan was to push wireless carriers to adopt RIM’s popular BlackBerry Messenger
(BBM) instant messaging service as a replacement for their short text
messaging system (SMS) applications – no matter what kind of phone their
customers used.

It was a novel plan. If RIM could get BBM onto hundreds of millions of non-
BlackBerry phones, and charge fees for it, the company would have an enormous
new source of profit, Mr. Balsillie believed. “It was a really big idea,” said
an employee who was involved in the project._

~~~
tomp
> If RIM could get BBM onto hundreds of millions of non-BlackBerry phones, and
> charge fees for it,

Why would carriers want to get on board with it? Just take a look at heir
resistance to _free_ SMS replacement, now imagine they had to pay fees for it
as well...

------
mrdrozdov
Thought that it'd be interesting to compare the usage numbers of a few chat
networks, since this article missed a few:

IRC - 1 million users around "peak" in 2003 (I don't actually know if this was
the peak, but couldn't find numbers prior to 2003)
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Relay_Chat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Relay_Chat))

    
    
      RC usage has been declining since 2003, losing 60% of its users (from 1 million to about 400,000 in 2014) and half of its channels (from half a million in 2003).
    

Slack - 1 million users as of last year
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slack_(software)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slack_\(software\)))

    
    
      In 2015, Slack passed more than a million daily active users.
    

Kik - 240 million users as of last year
([http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/02/the-fall-and-rise-
an...](http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/02/the-fall-and-rise-and-rise-and-
rise-of-chat-networks/))

    
    
      With an updated figure of 240 million users...
    

WeChat - 570 million users as of last year
([http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/02/the-fall-and-rise-
an...](http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/02/the-fall-and-rise-and-rise-and-
rise-of-chat-networks/))

    
    
      As of September 2015 there are now more than 570 million people on WeChat’s network...

------
oxplot
Ah, nostalgia. I used MSN Messenger religiously until I started college at
which point had to switch to Linux (thank goodness). Lots of fond memories. At
some point I figured that since MSN lists the online "buddies" in unicode
order, putting a space at the start of one's display name puts them at the top
of everyone's list!

Also, it's interesting to see how people corrected their typos back in 80s,
"Er, " instead of "*". I like the former better actually.

------
ritonlajoie
My first contact with internet was Microsoft Chat. I didn't know, at the time,
it was an IRC client. But I was like 13, and at this time it was great fun see
those comics take life on the screen and react accordingly to keywords !

Screenshot :
[http://www.mermeliz.com/files/summary/comic.jpg](http://www.mermeliz.com/files/summary/comic.jpg)

------
raddad
Some stats on chats
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_messaging](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_messaging)

Have to scroll down about 4/5 of the way.

~~~
cpach
Here's a more granular URL for convenience:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_messaging#Statistics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_messaging#Statistics)
:)

------
MichaelBurge
Most people I know use Skype for the same purpose that I used MSN Messenger
for back in 2000. I think I pay $6 a month for a telephone number through
Skype.

The idea of valuing a cell phone chat app at billions of dollars seems silly,
because if the cell phone companies made text messages free there would be no
reason for the chat apps to exist.

~~~
arjie
It's not true that there's no reason for the chat apps if texting is free. For
me and all of my friends text messaging is practically free (there's no unit
cost, and every plan we would want has no unit cost), but we use WhatsApp and
WeChat just as much.

The last two are super convenient when you want to send pictures, video, and
location and they have indicators to tell you if people are online or not and
if they've seen your message or not.

They have reliable group messaging unlike iMessage which only works with half
your friends and is therefore useless, and Hangouts which switches views so
slowly the conversation has gone right by you.

Oh, and the cost thing just makes things worse because these chat apps work
internationally seamlessly with all features. I can be in an airport in
Thailand and just need to find a WiFi point and I could just as well be
sitting in SFO waiting for my plane.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> we use WhatsApp and WeChat just as much.

> The last two are super convenient when you want to send pictures, video, and
> location and they have indicators to tell you if people are online or not
> and if they've seen your message or not.

I use wechat heavily. I haven't noticed presence indicators or message status
at all. Presence indicators actually contradict the basic premise of a phone
messaging app, which is that the other person is always online. Your phone
moves with you.

Where might I find these purported features of wechat?

~~~
arjie
Whoops sorry. I switch between the two (WhatsApp and WeChat) for different
groups. That's a WhatsApp feature and it's great (says "last seen at" or
"Online").

------
niftich
I got curious and researched the history of IM, the decline of the old
networks, and the rise of the new.

Anecdotally, I got into college (in the US) right as Facebook and Gmail opened
up to everyone, and my peer group created a "professional presence" of
Facebook and Gmail for our college lives, slowly leaving our myspace/AIM/WLM
lives with the crazy hair and skinny jeans behind. My experience was not
unique; this phenomenon has been researched by others [1][2][3][4]. Soon,
Facebook and Google introduced chat, and nearly everyone I wanted to talk to
was on one or both of those networks.

During my research, I was surprised to learn that AIM was in fact present at
the iOS appstore's launch, but I suppose there wasn't much overlap between a
typical AIM user and a typical iOS user at the time.

I also found an infographic from 2014 that charts some of these dates and
compares the active user counts of the IM networks over the years [5].

Here's a chronological timeline of selected milestones in the IM/social space:

2005-09 - Meebo launches offering web access to AIM, WLM, Yahoo

2006-02-07 - Google Talk integration inside Gmail goes live

2006-03 - Nielsen/Netratings survey for active users: AIM 53M, WLM 27M, Yahoo
22M

2006-07-12 - seamless interop starts between Windows Live Messenger and Yahoo
Messenger

2006-09 - Facebook opens up to everyone (not just colleges)

2007-07-07 - Gmail opens up to everyone (not just invite-only)

2007-05-09 - Windows Live Messenger released for Xbox 360 (with dashboard
update)

2007-12-06 - Google Talk gets limited AIM interop

2008-04 - Facebook chat goes live

2008-04-19 - Facebook overtakes Myspace in Alexa ranking

2008-07-11 - iOS App Store launches, AIM for iOS released

2008-08-26 - Facebook hits 100 million active users

2008-09-23 - Android 1.0 launches

2008-11-11 - Google Talk introduces voice and video calling

2008-12-22 - Meebo integrates with Facebook chat and Myspace IM

2009-03-31 - Skype released for iOS, Skype network has 42 million active users

2009-04-08 - Facebook hits 200 million active users

2009-06 - iOS gets push notifications

2009-09-15 - Facebook hits 300 million active users

2009-11 - WhatsApp released for iOS

2010-01 - WhatsApp released for BlackBerry

2010-02-05 - Facebook hits 400 million active users

2010-05 - WhatsApp released for Symbian

2010-05-20 - Android gets push notifications

2010-06-21 - FaceTime released with iOS 4

2010-06-21 - Windows Live Messenger released for iOS

2010-07-21 - Facebook hits 500 million active users

2010-08 - WhatsApp released for Android

2010-09-30 - Windows Live Messenger starts interop with Facebook Chat

2010-10 - Kik released

2010-12-02 - Viber released for iOS

2011-01-05 - Facebook hits 600 million active users

2011-01 - WeChat released

2011-01 - Skype for iOS introduces video calling

2011-04 - Facebook introduces voice calling

2011-05 - Viber released for Android

2011-05-30 - Facebook hits 700 million active users

2011-06 - LINE released

2011-07 - Facebook introduces video calling

2011-07 - Snapchat released for iOS

2011-09-22 - Facebook hits 800 million active users

2011-10-12 - iMessage released with iOS 5

2011-10-13 - Microsoft finishes acquiring Skype

2012-04-24 - Facebook hits 900 million active users

2012-07-11 - Meebo is acquired by Google and shut down

2012-10-29 - Snapchat released for Android

While it's tempting to accuse AIM, MSN, and Yahoo for being incompetent and
not catching up to the "mobile era", they in fact did pursue this market as
much as they were able. In truth, early iOS and Android were inferior
platforms for a chat app. Push notifications were absent, data rates were
expensive, and the average smartphone user at this time was not very likely to
use those networks anyway.

Based on this info, I reason that it was truly Facebook that killed incumbent
IM networks, at least in the US. Between the release of the iOS App Store and
the introduction of push notifications for Android, Facebook grew by more than
300 million active users. This coincided with exodus of users from Myspace to
Facebook; many of those users likely having used AIM, MSN, or Yahoo messenger
in the past, now found themselves in a much larger network that also offered
chat. Since Facebook largely subsumed everyone a person knew in real life,
these users only had to go back to the old IM networks to chat with people
they didn't know in real life, setting the stage for the weakening of
connections and these networks' decline.

By 2010, Facebook, or at least awareness of it, was mainstream. At the end of
2008, the Webster's New World Dictionary named "overshare" as the word of the
year [6], while in 2009, the New Oxford American Dictionary chose "unfriend"
[7]. For people new to the IM landscape, the old networks were dying and full
of "old people" now in their 20s and 30s, so new networks surfacing around
this time were appealing. This contributed to the grown of Kik and Snapchat,
while people for cheaper alternatives to texting and voice calls drove the
adoption of Viber, WhatsApp, and Skype. iMessage went live in late 2011,
offering with FaceTime a built-in rich chat on iOS, successfully capturing an
audience that would've surely gotten a third-party app otherwise. Later,
Hangouts on Android emulated this strategy.

Skype is a remarkable special case. Microsoft managed to squander the
popularity of MSN/WLM with its confusing product strategy, then it acquired a
VOIP product that targeted a different customer base. Not content with running
the two products separately, they deprecated WLM and encouraged everyone to
migrate to Skype, which didn't happen. Later, they leveraged Skype as the
built-in IM for their OS, while still committed to keeping it cross-platform.
It could very well be a trojan-horse into the Microsoft ecosystem, but it's
essentially entirely separate, completely unlike Google Hangouts.

So now we're living in a time when smartphones come with IM out of the box,
nearly every social network is gaining IM functionality (Instagram, Twitter,
Tumblr, etc.), and the new wave of circa-2011 chat apps are diversifying into
social networks (Snapchat) or platforms themselves (Kik, Viber, WeChat, LINE).
You actively use more than product capable of IM, but rarely by choice and
mostly by acclimation. Ironically, this situation benefits platforms the more
closed they are, an intuition that's made clear by complete decline of
interoperability between platforms in the past. IM is ubiquitious, leaving old
"IM only" networks owned by corporations who can't figure out what they're
doing (AOL, Yahoo) utterly irrelevant.

Sources:

[1] 2012
[http://socialtext.dukejournals.org/content/30/2_111/99.full....](http://socialtext.dukejournals.org/content/30/2_111/99.full.pdf)

[2] 2011-06-22
[http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/magazine/content/11_27/b42350539...](http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/magazine/content/11_27/b4235053917570.htm)

[3] 2007-07-11
[http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19717700/](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19717700/)

[4] 2009-03-16 [http://www.newsfactor.com/news/Facebook-Traffic-More-Than-
Do...](http://www.newsfactor.com/news/Facebook-Traffic-More-Than-
Doubles/story.xhtml?story_id=10000BCLMR0W&full_skip=1)

[5] 2014-10-22 [http://www.whoishostingthis.com/blog/2014/10/22/instant-
mess...](http://www.whoishostingthis.com/blog/2014/10/22/instant-messengers/)

[6] 2008-12-01 [https://wordoftheyear.wordpress.com/tag/websters-new-
world/](https://wordoftheyear.wordpress.com/tag/websters-new-world/)

[7] 2009-11-16
[http://blog.oup.com/2009/11/unfriend/](http://blog.oup.com/2009/11/unfriend/)

------
jsilence
Not a single word about lacking interoperability and encryption? What a crappy
article.

