I still don't get why people use SMS/MMS anyway? I've been using WhatsApp for ages now and so does everybody else in my country - and every country I've been in, apart from China and Japan. My friend who's from the US once said "I've paid for those text messages, so I'm going to use them!" But if I send him a text from Europe to the US, I pay 1 damn euro per delivered text. WhatsApp is free! Is there any viable reason why Apple users use SMS so much?
Almost nobody I know uses WhatsApp. On the other hand, a significant number of people I meet do have iMessage. There's no incentive for me to install WhatsApp. Even my friends internationally all have iPhones. I don't install third-party apps unless there is a very good reason. SMS is an inferior but acceptable fallback for edge cases.
This is a subthread about someone not from the US being surprised at the messaging habits of people in the US, so I think quoting a stat about iPhone/iMessage penetration in the US is perfectly relevant. The US "bubble" is the only one that matters in this particular conversation, as it's specifically what this conversation is about.
Nothing in the comment I've replied to quotes a stat or references the US, and nothing in the grandparent comment references stats or talks about the habits of the US specifically either. I'm also not questioning the relevance of any posted stats. I'm really confused by this comment, is it a mis post from another thread?
Not sure what you mean. The originator of this thread[0] is mostly talking about being surprised at US messaging habits.
Agreed that the person you replied to did not specifically mention the US, but their comment is consistent with a US user's experience, which makes sense since the thread is about US messaging.
> I still don't get why people use SMS/MMS anyway?
Someone responds:
> [I use SMS/MMS because] Almost nobody I know uses WhatsApp.
You respond:
> Your bubble is not representative of the whole world though.
Not only did the responder not claim for their bubble to represent the world, but it doesn't matter in any case. The set of people they'll be messaging on their phone is largely constrained to their "bubble." If nobody in their bubble uses WhatsApp, then why would they install WhatsApp?
As for the meta discussion revolving around the US: just because nobody mentioned it doesn't mean that's not obviously the central focus of this comment thread. If someone's bubble contains no WhatsApp users, you can be 99% sure that they are American. The US is the main place where platforms like WhatsApp have not been widely adopted. iPhones are extremely popular there, and iMessage is widely used. It's a country of over 300 million people where the vast majority of residents don't communicate with people outside the country.
This comment comes from a position of privilege and power. Not everyone can afford iPhones and neither is a value-for-money at those prices. If all your international friends are also using iPhones, then you are definitely in a very special bubble.
There are many people in the US who have no international contacts, and so they grew up using only the default messaging app. And they are not sufficiently incentivized to install another app like WhatsApp.
Between NYC/SF, I do not know a single person that does not use both iMessage and WhatsApp. But typically it is people who are not children of immigrants and whose social circles have no one outside the country that tend to not have WhatsApp.
It's weird to me that so many people don't seem to get that. SMS/MMS are terrible in many ways, but they have the benefit of the universal network effect, without even trying.
Sure, if I want to send someone videos, or do regular group chats, I'm going to find an alternative platform. But if it's just a casual contact, or I don't anticipate needing these things, I'll just stick with SMS.
I think this is exclusive to Jibe and Google Messages but a widespread (in terms of installs) proof-of-concept is still pretty cool, and better than nothing.
The bigger problem is adding E2E to SMS is going to attract the FBI's ire, they really really really like reading everybody's texts.
WhatsApp was appealing before it got sucked into the FB vortex. Thanks, but no thanks.
If there were a single 3rd-party messaging platform that I trusted, and my friends started using it, sure. But since 75% use iPhones/iMessage, and the rest SMS, why in the world would I use WhatsApp?
It comes preinstalled, works, is free. Why would I look for a different messaging app? What does WhatsApp do that the preinstalled, free, messaging app doesn't?
SMS doesn't do group chats; I think you're thinking of MMS. I agree that it's not a great experience, though.
> Group messages to anyone regardless of platform.
That's the thing though; that's not true. WhatsApp might be available on both Android and iOS, but it only works if the person you want to talk to has it installed and has set up an account. That requires coordination. If I meet someone new and want to get in touch with them, I'm going to ask for their phone number (or email address). I'm not going to ask them which messaging apps they have installed so we can figure out which one(s) we have in common.
Sure, if later on I want to start a long-running group chat including this person, I'll absolutely go to the effort of finding a common chat platform that is not MMS, because MMS is terrible. But if I'm only doing 1-on-1 conversations, or just short one-off group chats, I won't bother.
(Interestingly, for some people, even though I have group chats with them on an alternate platform, I'll still message them 1-on-1 using SMS. Not sure why that's the case, and it's not universal. I guess it's just whatever we'd gotten used to, and saw no need to change.)
I think this is region specific. In the UK and a lot of western Europe, you'd probably assume that the other person does have Whatsapp installed and just try messaging on that. If that didn't work, then you might try Messenger or SMS.
A lot of people I know use groupme for groupchats, especially because they support a lot of users, but then its texts for everything else because its simpler. Chat apps have shortcomings, especially if you live where data connections are spotty which is everywhere in America with a large indoor space. My grocery store might as well be a faraday cage for anything demanding my 4g connection, but SMS goes through instantly.
I've seen this position a lot throughout this thread and I have a question: all of these apps (whatsapp, signal, etc.) appear to be "free" - how do you suppose they will make money? In the US, the users of sms/mms/imessage paid in some way for this service and can have some reasonable expectation for delivery and availability.
I believe the Signal Foundation runs on donations. So far this appears to have been sustainable, but of course you could make the argument that we don't know if that will always be the case.
But that's the case for any business, even one for which users directly pay for the service.
I use WhatsApp as well, but not many of the people I communicate with have it. SMS/MMS is a common denominator that everyone with a phone number has, and can always be relied upon to work without foreknowledge that the other party has a particular app installed.
> But if I send him a text from Europe to the US, I pay 1 damn euro per delivered text
How the tables have turned! It's no secret that the US has more expensive cellular plans than the rest of the world, but with my carrier, international texting is free.
As counterpoint, I am an Android user in the US, and 90%+ of my contacts are US-based iPhone users. While I do use Signal, WhatsApp, or GChat for nearly all of my group chats, I have 1-on-1 conversations over SMS daily, with quite a few people.
I've managed to move a few of the 1-on-1 chats to Signal, but not many.
Apple users don't use SMS—they use iMessage. It's seamless and automatic. All your contacts are automatically there as long as you have a phone number or email address which is an AppleID. It's so seamless most people don't even realize they are using it.
