PDA

View Full Version : [mobile OSs] Why are we ok with Apple still not providing a built-in IM to chat with other phones?




Calidude
Aug 3, 2012, 07:56 AM
iMessage is great. Don't get me wrong. It really is a great feature, but let me get this clear, it ONLY works with iPhones and iPods and Macs. Before you guys say "well you can talk to other phones its called texting hurr durr" its not the same as IM/chat, which is what iMessage is.

Let's compare this to Android:

With Android, you have a built-in feature called Google Talk. Anybody with a Google account on any computer or any phone can use their web browser or download an app to chat with an Android user who activates their built-in Google Talk, which is on by default. Therefore, you don't have to have a phone or even an Android phone to chat with somebody walking around with their Android phone, without them having to download another app.

If they have an iPhone however, you have to have an iPhone, iPod or Mac to chat with the iPhone user's built-in capability for IM chat.

Now, lets compare this to Windows Phone:

Windows Phone has built-in Live and Facebook chat. It's even more powerful than Android or iPhone by default in this because anybody with a Live or Facebook account can chat from any computer or other kind of smartphone with somebody who owns a Windows Phone, without the WP user having to download another app.

If they have an iPhone however, you have to have an iPhone, iPod or Mac to chat with the iPhone user's built-in capability for IM chat.

So clearly, iMessage is only good for Apple users who only IM with other Apple users, while Android and Windows Phone have built-in functionality to allow you to communicate with other kinds of phones and computers even if you can't text them due to international charges and such. With an iPhone, I'd have to download an app to IM with somebody on a Windows PC or an Android phone while they can't even IM with my phone from a web browser unless I get that app and leave it on.

How can this all be fixed? In one of the following ways.

Apple must bring the iOS Messages app to par with the Messages client on OSX Mountain Lion, allowing iPhone users to chat with users from AIM, Yahoo, Google Talk, Jabber, etc.
Apple must make apps for other smartphones and PC's that allow them to chat with iMessage users.

Guess which way is the common sense way to go about this?

So that brings me to my final question: Why are we ok with Apple allowing built-in IM chat to only happen between Apple users? Shouldn't we be demanding that extra built-in IM functionality for iDevices?



tomhut
Aug 3, 2012, 08:07 AM
iMessage isn't so much an instant messaging client but more of an SMS replacement. The fact that a message is going over iMessage rather than using SMS should be mostly invisible to the end user and the concept of a user being online or offline dosnt really exist.

If you want AIM, Windows Live Messenger or another IM service you have loads apps that give you this functionality to choose from.

BaldiMac
Aug 3, 2012, 08:08 AM
1) Text messaging is far more popular than IM on phones.
2) You can download any IM client you want on an iPhone.
3) In my experience, most Android users don't use Google Talk. Your mileage may vary.
4) "Presence" is hard to manage between a phone and other devices.

MonkeySee....
Aug 3, 2012, 08:09 AM
Blackberry made this their focus. It didn't work.

p.s You come back from a "Time out" to start another "negative" Apple thread. Interesting.

You don't work on the Android/MS board of directors do you?

ericrwalker
Aug 3, 2012, 08:10 AM
That's what I need, another app built into my phone that I will never use and can't remove.:confused:


If you want a IM program there are many in the App store.

*Calypso*
Aug 3, 2012, 08:18 AM
I'm not a fan of any proprietary instant messenger protocols, but even less of every company coming up with its own standard messenger App. Yes, Google Talk is available on other platforms, so is Samsung's ChatOn. iMessage and BBM are not and will probably never be, but that's not even the major problem.

The problem is that it's simply ridiculous to use iMessage, Google Talk, ChatOn and other messengers side by side when there is a pretty convenient independent instant messenger called WhatsApp.

So instead of using Messenger.app to chat with my iOS-friends, Google Talk to chat with my Android-friends and ChatOn to chat with my Bada-friends, I use WhatsApp to chat with all of them (okay, technically I can't chat with Bada-friends because it's not yet supported, but luckily they declined to zero recently).

My point is: We already have the problem that there are too many mobile operating systems out there. Compared to the computer world, where there are basically three operating systems, Windows, OS X and Linux, there are iOS, Android, Windows Phone, BlackBerry OS, Bada, Symbian, MeeGo, Firefox OS and more to come. Now these companies come up with their own instant messaging solution in each mobile OS, with none inter-compatible and some proprietary.

I understand the manufacturer's ambition to come up with a "cool" messaging solution, but for the customers it's a total disaster, because you can barely convince any of your friends to choose an independent messenger like WhatsApp when they are already used to the pre-installed messenger. So my Android-friends will tell me to install Google Talk, my Bada-friends to get ChatOn and Blackberry- and iPhone-people will simply tell you to get an BlackBerry or and iPhone.

If Apple really wants to make us happy they give us an Messenger-API in iOS, so I can choose the IM that I want to integrate in Messenger.app. But we all know this will never happen, because Apple wants to get as many people as possible caught in their proprietary ecosystem - and iMessage is an easy way to do that.

roadbloc
Aug 3, 2012, 08:21 AM
I don't care.

Zaft
Aug 3, 2012, 08:26 AM
it doesnt matter to me. 80% of people i know have an iphone, and the other 20% are looking to get the new iphone.

8 out of 10 contacts that im texting with are blue :D

BaldiMac
Aug 3, 2012, 08:28 AM
I'm not a fan of any proprietary instant messenger protocols, but even less of every company coming up with its own standard messenger App. Yes, Google Talk is available on other platforms, so is Samsung's ChatOn. iMessage and BBM are not and will probably never be, but that's not even the major problem.

The problem is that it's simply ridiculous to use iMessage, Google Talk, ChatOn and other messengers side by side when there is a pretty convenient independent instant messenger called WhatsApp.

So instead of using Messenger.app to chat with my iOS-friends, Google Talk to chat with my Android-friends and ChatOn to chat with my Bada-friends, I use WhatsApp to chat with all of them (okay, technically I can't chat with Bada-friends because it's not yet supported, but luckily they declined to zero recently).

My point is: We already have the problem that there are too many mobile operating systems out there. Compared to the computer world, where there are basically three operating systems, Windows, OS X and Linux, there are iOS, Android, Windows Phone, BlackBerry OS, Bada, Symbian, MeeGo, Firefox OS and more to come. Now these companies come up with their own instant messaging solution in each mobile OS, with none inter-compatible and some proprietary.

I understand the manufacturer's ambition to come up with a "cool" messaging solution, but for the customers it's a total disaster, because you can barely convince any of your friends to choose an independent messenger like WhatsApp when they are already used to the pre-installed messenger. So my Android-friends will tell me to install Google Talk, my Bada-friends to get ChatOn and Blackberry- and iPhone-people will simply tell you to get an BlackBerry or and iPhone.

If Apple really wants to make us happy they give us an Messenger-API in iOS, so I can choose the IM that I want to integrate in Messenger.app. But we all know this will never happen, because Apple wants to get as many people as possible caught in their proprietary ecosystem - and iMessage is an easy way to do that.

The easier solution is just text messaging. Shared data plans are already here in the US with unlimited text messaging. Another year or two and many carriers will give up on trying to make money from text messages from smartphones.

Calidude
Aug 3, 2012, 08:35 AM
That's what I need, another app built into my phone that I will never use and can't remove.:confused:


If you want a IM program there are many in the App store.
Uh this is just extra functionality for a system app, not an extra app.

ericrwalker
Aug 3, 2012, 08:44 AM
Uh this is just extra functionality for a system app, not an extra app.


Built in where? In the messages.app? Like iMessage?

KnightWRX
Aug 3, 2012, 08:47 AM
I'm not a fan of any proprietary instant messenger protocols

Google Talk uses XMPP (https://developers.google.com/talk/open_communications#developer), which is not a proprietary protocol at all (http://xmpp.org/xmpp-protocols/rfcs/).

In fact, iChat supports XMPP and uses it in its iChat Server component. So iChat and Google Talk are compatible as far as IM goes.

What Apple has failed to do though is bring iChat to iOS. Instead, they made a BBM bastard called iMessage, made a seperate app for it on Mac instead of using the already existing iChat, forcing users to use multiple applications on Mac, and being left to 3rd parties to integrate XMPP support on iOS.

Why... who knows. Apple always does stuff like this unfortunately.

(EDIT : Just to point out, I actually love iMessage. I don't have a SMS plan and with iMessage, don't really have a need for one anymore).

Calidude
Aug 3, 2012, 08:50 AM
Built in where? In the messages.app? Like iMessage?
Yes.

Small White Car
Aug 3, 2012, 08:51 AM
If Apple does everything it will really put a boot on the throat of the 3rd party developers.

Should they add all of Camera+'s features to the camera too? Does it help anyone if they cut off the competition for these kind of apps right up front, leading to no competition in those spaces?

I have a Facebook chat app and a Google chat app. And on that front I actually have choices as to which Google chat app I want. Isn't that a wonderful thing? Why crush that?

KnightWRX
Aug 3, 2012, 08:53 AM
If Apple does everything it will really put a boot on the throat of the 3rd party developers.

Sure, but failing to integrate XMPP, a protocol they use on the Mac in their own server and client offerings through iChat, is a little daft. Your Camera+ analogy really doesn't apply.

ericrwalker
Aug 3, 2012, 08:58 AM
Yes.

Gotcha, if they go that route they might as well make it compatible with AOL, MSN, Yahoo, Google chat, iCQ, myfreewebcams, and whatever other messaging program is used out there. With the ability to turn off too of course. I wouldn't have a problem with that, but a new app that I can't remove would suck.

Calidude
Aug 3, 2012, 09:00 AM
If Apple does everything it will really put a boot on the throat of the 3rd party developers.

Should they add all of Camera+'s features to the camera too? Does it help anyone if they cut off the competition for these kind of apps right up front, leading to no competition in those spaces?

I have a Facebook chat app and a Google chat app. And on that front I actually have choices as to which Google chat app I want. Isn't that a wonderful thing? Why crush that?
Because I think Apple can do some things better on their OS than 3rd party developers can.

----------

Gotcha, if they go that route they might as well make it compatible with AOL, MSN, Yahoo, Google chat, iCQ, myfreewebcams, and whatever other messaging program is used out there. With the ability to turn off too of course. I wouldn't have a problem with that, but a new app that I can't remove would suck.
I already said it should just have the same functionality as the Messages app on OSX. That would be more than enough. Heck, even just XMPP support would be enough since Google Talk, Yahoo and Live are going that route with XMPP

Small White Car
Aug 3, 2012, 09:01 AM
Sure, but failing to integrate XMPP, a protocol they use on the Mac in their own server and client offerings through iChat, is a little daft. Your Camera+ analogy really doesn't apply.

I'm not really clear how that would work. Mostly, I'm not a huge fan of programs that mix up different 'friend' networks. I don't want my Facebook friends mixed in with my address book. So how do you manage that? 2 different contact lists within the same program?

It starts to turn into "what's the point?" then. If a single app is going to be heavily segmented, I might as well have 2 apps at that point. At least then you can get different notifications/sounds from each app so you know what's coming in.


Because I think Apple can do some things better on their OS than 3rd party developers can.

Ok, maybe they can. But I'd still prefer they make a unique app for each network. If Apple wants to make a G-Chat app and a Facebook app, go for it. So I didn't vote on your poll because I don't want all those things combined, so neither answer really seems to do it for me.

ericrwalker
Aug 3, 2012, 09:01 AM
I already said it should just have the same functionality as the Messages app on OSX. That would be more than enough. Heck, even just XMPP support would be enough since Google Talk, Yahoo and Live are going that route with XMPP


Since I don't have a MAC I wouldn't know what that meant. (actually your first post was too long to bother reading)

Calidude
Aug 3, 2012, 09:08 AM
Since I don't have a MAC I wouldn't know what that meant. (actually your first post was too long to bother reading)
XMPP is an open IM standard that lets IM users chat across different networks.

Support for that would be perfect for the Messages app. We'd have built-in IM for a number of networks and it would make things just great.

*Calypso*
Aug 3, 2012, 09:10 AM
The easier solution is just text messaging. Shared data plans are already here in the US with unlimited text messaging. Another year or two and many carriers will give up on trying to make money from text messages from smartphones.

Yeah, but not everybody wants to pay for unlimited text messaging - the corresponding amount of data needed for instant messaging is always cheaper! Also, you cannot group chat with text messages.

I, for example, only pay for a data plan, text messages are pay as you go and I don't see why I should spend a single cent on them when I can use iMessage and WhatsApp as much as I want over 3G.

Small White Car
Aug 3, 2012, 09:12 AM
XMPP is an open IM standard that lets IM users chat across different networks.

Support for that would be perfect for the Messages app. We'd have built-in IM for a number of networks and it would make things just great.

Well, clarify something for me.

Does that mean I could use account A to communicate with networks B, C, and D? Just log into A and go?

THAT would be good. If I can log into one thing and talk to everyone else, cool!

But what I'm used to is apps that make you simultaneously log in to account A, B, C, and D. You know, like an email program.

I have no interest in that. It's just confusing. Who am I sending to? Where am I sending from? Oops, I need to switch over to the proper network! If I have to log into 4 networks, then just give me 4 apps.

dejo
Aug 3, 2012, 09:15 AM
So that brings me to my final question: Why are we ok with Apple allowing built-in IM chat to only happen between Apple users? Shouldn't we be demanding that extra built-in IM functionality for iDevices?

A follow-up question might be: Why are we ok with Google allowing built-in IM chat to only happen between Google Talk users? :D

tomhut
Aug 3, 2012, 09:16 AM
XMPP is an open IM standard that lets IM users chat across different networks.

Support for that would be perfect for the Messages app. We'd have built-in IM for a number of networks and it would make things just great.

Seems like a world of hurt for the average user though. The OS would have to keep connections open to all these different Instant messaging networks, reconnect whenever they lose connection and track online/offline state for everyone. None of these complications exist with SMS/iMessage. Not to mention the bloat it would add to the existing messaging app and the potential hit on battery life.

Personally I see SMS/iMessage as a completely different paradigm to IM and therefore they should be kept apart.

miles01110
Aug 3, 2012, 09:18 AM
Use Twitter.

Calidude
Aug 3, 2012, 09:18 AM
Well, clarify something for me.

Does that mean I could use account A to communicate with networks B, C, and D? Just log into A and go?
With XMPP, all you can do is use Jabber and Google Talk, which is pretty good.

However, the best option is to add the same support from OSX and allow the user to log into Networks A, B, C and D directly.

Small White Car
Aug 3, 2012, 09:21 AM
Personally I see SMS/iMessage as a completely different paradigm to IM and therefore they should be kept apart.

This actually is an important point. I've seen some bloggers talk about this recently.

IM assumes you can set a 'here/away' status and people are used to waiting for a reply as you might not get the message for awhile.

SMS assumes you are always on and if you don't reply there must be a reason.

Thus, the way I choose send a message indicates the urgency with which I expect a reply. There are certain messages you would only send one way but not the other way.

Is there a way to deal with this within a single program? Maybe. Or do we just have to get over this as society soon moves to treat ALL forms off communication like the text...we know you have a smart phone, so we know you got it! IM, email, texts...they're all the same now.

Maybe that's the real answer. Those differentiations are going to go away so this problem solves itself.

Interesting to think about, anyway.

Calidude
Aug 3, 2012, 09:48 AM
Honestly I think the future is going to be a system very similar to Whatsapp for all phones.


We're moving towards a celluar system that is going to be VOIP and data based anyway
SMS assuming you're always available is outdated. You should have a status for ALL messaging.
We shouldn't have to pay extra to text anyway. It should be a flat rate for data.
Having the double checkmarks or Sent/Received system is essential for IM communication these days like it was on BBM
You can't do advanced stuff like send a location or audio or a contact via SMS
Nobody wants to pay extra for International messaging like we are charged for on SMS anyway
SMS is slow. Ever watch that progess bar on your iPhone? Compare that to Whatsapp.
Group messaging is the future and SMS doesn't work for that.
Why the hell should any phone IM have PINs or usernames?
We should have the ability to block SMS from certain users with the the touch of a button like we can block other users with Whatsapp, instead of calling our carrier.

SMS is busted. Whatsapp's system will eventually replace it.

BaldiMac
Aug 3, 2012, 10:01 AM
Yeah, but not everybody wants to pay for unlimited text messaging - the corresponding amount of data needed for instant messaging is always cheaper!

Except that was my point. At least in the US, the move has started to include text messaging with the data plan. Most people won't need to pay separately for messaging in the near future.

Also, you cannot group chat with text messages.

Why not?

I, for example, only pay for a data plan, text messages are pay as you go and I don't see why I should spend a single cent on them when I can use iMessage and WhatsApp as much as I want over 3G.

Again, the new shared data plans introduced by Verizon and AT&T include unlimited messaging. No extra charges.

*Calypso*
Aug 3, 2012, 10:35 AM
Again, the new shared data plans introduced by Verizon and AT&T include unlimited messaging. No extra charges.

I wouldn't say "no extra charges" when you can get cheaper data plans without unlimited messaging, even in the US. For example, in Germany data plans start as low as 7 a month, while the ones including unlimited messaging are usually at least 15-20.

It's a fact that SMS have always and probably will always be overpriced judged by the actual data traffic / network load they create. It's not US carriers giving unlimited texts away for free all of a sudden, it's just their excuse for not significantly lowering data plan charges (compared to the rest of the world). ;)

KnightWRX
Aug 3, 2012, 11:05 AM
A follow-up question might be: Why are we ok with Google allowing built-in IM chat to only happen between Google Talk users? :D

We wouldn't be ok with it if that were the case. As it stands, Google Talk is simply a XMPP network. I use iChat to talk to Google Talk users all the time.

throAU
Aug 3, 2012, 11:13 AM
iMessage rocks because it is totally transparent, and falls back to SMS if the data network is not available. You need to do nothing to use it.

It "just works".


If you want an IM client for the iphone, plenty are available.

dejo
Aug 3, 2012, 11:14 AM
We wouldn't be ok with it if that were the case. As it stands, Google Talk is simply a XMPP network. I use iChat to talk to Google Talk users all the time.

I stand corrected.

matttye
Aug 3, 2012, 12:00 PM
There's no Google Talk app by Google for iPad nor is there a Whatsapp app for iPad!

Basically out of luck if we want a decent cross-platform messaging experience when we have iOS and something else. The mrs and I both have iPads but Android phones. We have to switch between email/SMS/iMessage.

Calidude
Aug 3, 2012, 01:35 PM
There's no Google Talk app by Google for iPad nor is there a Whatsapp app for iPad!

Basically out of luck if we want a decent cross-platform messaging experience when we have iOS and something else. The mrs and I both have iPads but Android phones. We have to switch between email/SMS/iMessage.
Your answer is Imo. Works for iPhone and iPad perfectly, connects to Google Talk and many other networks.

matttye
Aug 3, 2012, 01:58 PM
Your answer is Imo. Works for iPhone and iPad perfectly, connects to Google Talk and many other networks.

Multi-network clients tend to be quite messy. I don't need all those different social networks; I just want to use ONE that is cross-platform.

Calidude
Aug 4, 2012, 12:33 AM
Multi-network clients tend to be quite messy. I don't need all those different social networks; I just want to use ONE that is cross-platform.
What? No. Imo can function as a Google Talk client alone. You don't need to sign up for their Imo Network. All you have to do deny their offer to get an Imo account and then just sign in to Google via Imo. It works like Pidgin or Adium. It works flawlessly and is your best bet for a functional Google Talk client on iOS.

matttye
Aug 4, 2012, 05:00 AM
What? No. Imo can function as a Google Talk client alone. You don't need to sign up for their Imo Network. All you have to do deny their offer to get an Imo account and then just sign in to Google via Imo. It works like Pidgin or Adium. It works flawlessly and is your best bet for a functional Google Talk client on iOS.

Cool I'll give it a go then thanks!

kokhean
Aug 4, 2012, 06:04 AM
That's what I need, another app built into my phone that I will never use and can't remove.:confused:

You can disable iMessage...

ericrwalker
Aug 4, 2012, 04:00 PM
You can disable iMessage...

I understand that. I was talking about the stocks app, weather, newsstand, etc...

Technarchy
Aug 4, 2012, 04:25 PM
IM chat is a dinosaur.

Between iMessage, Facebook messenger, Instagram and twitter, and SMS, there are already a glut of options for communicating.

Even when I had Google Talk it was never used because more of my contacts were in the aforementioned solutions.

IM chat is a pointless endeavor.

matttye
Aug 4, 2012, 04:46 PM
IM chat is a dinosaur.

Between iMessage, Facebook messenger, Instagram and twitter, and SMS, there are already a glut of options for communicating.

Even when I had Google Talk it was never used because more of my contacts were in the aforementioned solutions.

IM chat is a pointless endeavor.

Whatsapp is an excellent cross platform solution that changes your phone number into your identifier.

If it worked for iPad it would be perfect.

Technarchy
Aug 4, 2012, 05:09 PM
Whatsapp is an excellent cross platform solution that changes your phone number into your identifier.

If it worked for iPad it would be perfect.

Okay, but who cares? I don't mean that in a snarky way, but literally. Who the hell cares?

IM was huge 10 years ago. It's dead now. Yahoo Messenger, MSN messenger, AIM...they are ghost towns.

A prime example is Google Talk. It has the best market penetration of any IM platform on the planet. Every GMail, GTalk, G+ and android phone user has access, and most users simply dont care.

matttye
Aug 4, 2012, 05:17 PM
Okay, but who cares? I don't mean that in a snarky way, but literally. Who the hell cares?

IM was huge 10 years ago. It's dead now. Yahoo Messenger, MSN messenger, AIM...they are ghost towns.

A prime example is Google Talk. It has the best market penetration of any IM platform on the planet. Every GMail, GTalk, G+ and android phone user has access, and most users simply dont care.

I do; I want an app where I can talk to people on either of my devices, and it stays in sync with either of their devices. Is that too much to ask?

moonman239
Aug 4, 2012, 08:01 PM
Honestly I think the future is going to be a system very similar to Whatsapp for all phones.


We're moving towards a celluar system that is going to be VOIP and data based anyway
SMS assuming you're always available is outdated. You should have a status for ALL messaging.
We shouldn't have to pay extra to text anyway. It should be a flat rate for data.
Having the double checkmarks or Sent/Received system is essential for IM communication these days like it was on BBM
You can't do advanced stuff like send a location or audio or a contact via SMS You can send a map of where you are. You can also send a contact. However, it uses MMS, not SMS.
Nobody wants to pay extra for International messaging like we are charged for on SMS anyway I agree.
SMS is slow. Ever watch that progess bar on your iPhone? Compare that to Whatsapp.
Group messaging is the future and SMS doesn't work for that.
Why the hell should any phone IM have PINs or usernames?
We should have the ability to block SMS from certain users with the the touch of a button like we can block other users with Whatsapp, instead of calling our carrier. Definitely. If you want AT&T to care who's allowed to call or text you, you have to add parental controls to your plan, which means you'll have to pay more money.

SMS is busted. Whatsapp's system will eventually replace it.

Responses in bold.

Calidude
Aug 5, 2012, 02:26 AM
Okay, but who cares? I don't mean that in a snarky way, but literally. Who the hell cares?

IM was huge 10 years ago. It's dead now. Yahoo Messenger, MSN messenger, AIM...they are ghost towns.

A prime example is Google Talk. It has the best market penetration of any IM platform on the planet. Every GMail, GTalk, G+ and android phone user has access, and most users simply dont care.
First of all, we're talking about modern IM built into smartphones, not AIM garbage. Google Talk is still a viable platform that simply needs improvements in order to work better for people. It's already built-in on most people's smartphones since Android is the top-used platform right now, so all Google needs to do is make it more like iMessage and it will be used even more than it is today.

I dunno about you, but GTalk is the still one of the main ways people chat today simply because its built into Gmail, so just powering it up with iMessagey features is all that is left to make that platform great.

Second, IM is not dead. Look at people's enthusiasm for iMessage, Whatsapp, Kik and BBM, all forms of advanced IM. That's what people REALLY want instead of a dinosaur like SMS. Your thinking is simply backwards, IM isn't the past, its the future, and the success of these platforms shows that. The only thing getting in the way are carriers.

matttye
Aug 5, 2012, 05:03 AM
First of all, we're talking about modern IM built into smartphones, not AIM garbage. Google Talk is still a viable platform that simply needs improvements in order to work better for people. It's already built-in on most people's smartphones since Android is the top-used platform right now, so all Google needs to do is make it more like iMessage and it will be used even more than it is today.

I dunno about you, but GTalk is the still one of the main ways people chat today simply because its built into Gmail, so just powering it up with iMessagey features is all that is left to make that platform great.

Second, IM is not dead. Look at people's enthusiasm for iMessage, Whatsapp, Kik and BBM, all forms of advanced IM. That's what people REALLY want instead of a dinosaur like SMS. You thinking is simply backwards, IM isn't the past, its the future, and the success of these platforms shows that. The only thing getting in the way are carriers.

Yeah, to suggest that IM is dead when whatsapp is one of the most popular apps on Android (not only in terms of number of downloads, but also in terms of 5* ratings), is absurd.

Calidude
Aug 5, 2012, 09:26 AM
Yeah, to suggest that IM is dead when whatsapp is one of the most popular apps on Android (not only in terms of number of downloads, but also in terms of 5* ratings), is absurd.
Yeah, and let's not forget Facebook Messenger, which is big now and people use even more than the crappy Facebook app, and the dozen other smaller IM companies competing for Whatsapp's spot on iPhone like Kakaotalk, Line, Viber, etc.

Web-based messengers like Imo. Ebuddy and IM+. Meebo being bought by Google. Trillian and Pidgin for Windows, people still using Adium and iChat on OSX.

And lets not forget that one of the big reasons people STILL stay on Blackberry is because of BBM.