Post by: Gregg on October 22, 2008, 07:33:49 PM
Y do ppl use it?
cant think of 1 good reason...
I would just call, or send an e-mail.
Post by: Highmac on October 23, 2008, 04:54:58 AM
From Vnunet (latest report I can find):
QUOTE
Mobile phone users in the UK send an average of 1.2 billion text messages a week, according to the latest quarterly UK research by the Mobile Data Association (MDA).
The figures show that 4,825 billion messages were sent during September 2007, the equivalent of 4,000 every second and equating to all the messages sent during the whole of 1999.
The figures show that 4,825 billion messages were sent during September 2007, the equivalent of 4,000 every second and equating to all the messages sent during the whole of 1999.
That's for a population of around 60 million. Also, texts are generally much cheaper than voice calls, with contract users sometimes having a monthly allowance of hundreds included in their line rental. Orange pay monthly, for example, has plans that offer 100, 500, or unlimited texts per month, depending what you pay. On my Pay As You Go tariff (Virgin mobile), calls are 15p for the first five minutes each day, 5p a min after that, but a text costs just 3p to a Virgin phone, or 12p to phones outside the network. So still cheaper than a voice call.
And in the US...
QUOTE
About 75 billion SMS text messages were sent in June, averaging about 2.5 billion messages a day (17.5bn a week), the report said. This represents an increase of 160 percent over the 28.8 billion messages reported in June 2007.
On a related note, the use of handheld phones while driving is against the law in the UK.
Post by: Gregg on October 23, 2008, 06:46:31 AM
QUOTE(Highmac @ Oct 23 2008, 04:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I do use text messages, but not txt spk - can't get the hang of it (don't really want to!)
Next time I catch you using an internet acronym in a post.... 
QUOTE
and it took me a while to get the hang of predictive text;
don't even know what you're talking about
QUOTE
they're handy if you just want to provide a bit of info (like the bus is running late),
Just a phone call works for that. Then you know whether or not the message was received. If the person doesn't answer the phone, it wasn't*; if the person doesn't answer the txt msg, you don't know.
*Ok, if they have an answering machine, and you leave a message, you don't know either.
STRIKE ONE
QUOTE
can't be sure the recipient is near a computer
Ok, if it's an emergency, a phone call works better. You get instantaneous responses, which helps you be sure the message you're sending is received and processed properly. I can imagine exchanging several text messages, then calling in frustration because the other person doesn't "get it". I've done that after exchanging e-mails. If it's not an emergency, e-mail is fine. You tend to learn how often people check their e-mail. I still can't see a good reason to text.
STRIKE TWO
QUOTE
or if you're not sure it's a good time to call
See above regarding urgency. Plus, "Hello, is this a bad time to call? I can call back later." Or use e-mail.
STRIKE THREE
QUOTE
texts are generally much cheaper than voice calls
This one is interesting. With our Family Plan, we pay a flat rate for up to X minutes. We've only exceeded the limit once. So, 99.9% of the time, a phone call does not add a dime to our bill. However, every text message, whether incoming* or outgoing (our sons get them, and one sends a few himself) adds 15 cents to the bill. So, if that were true for us, I'd see a legitimate reason to use texting.
*I hate that!
STRIKE ONE (with one out)
I'm gonna be tough to convince.
Post by: Highmac on October 23, 2008, 07:34:59 AM
QUOTE(Gregg @ Oct 23 2008, 12:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE(Highmac @ Oct 23 2008, 04:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I do use text messages, but not txt spk - can't get the hang of it (don't really want to!)
Next time I catch you using an internet acronym in a post.... QUOTE
and it took me a while to get the hang of predictive text;
don't even know what you're talking about
I'm gonna be tough to convince.
Predictive text - the phone carries a dictionary and 'guesses' (or predicts) which word you want from the combination of key presses. Hard to explain and took a little while for me to get my head round it
WikipediaAs to cost... well, I am a Scot
Ain't gonna try to convince you - each to his own
Guess that's as near to laid-back as we can get...
Post by: Paddy on October 23, 2008, 08:30:49 AM
http://communication.howstuffworks.com/sms1.htm
Hadn't thought of the advantages for deaf and hearing-impaired people - definitely a plus for them!
Post by: kbeartx on October 23, 2008, 10:54:14 AM
QUOTE(Gregg @ Oct 23 2008, 06:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
However, every text message, whether incoming* or outgoing (our sons get them, and one sends a few himself) adds 15 cents to the bill.
I read somewhere recently that this is only true in the good ol' USA - the rest of the world [or at least many other countries] do not get charged for incoming calls or texts...
KB
Post by: Xairbusdriver on October 23, 2008, 07:18:14 PM
Some 'old codgers' are just too stubborn about "change!" Many of us keep asking "Why? What are the benefits?"
YMMV! ROTFL! TC!
Post by: Gregg on October 23, 2008, 08:45:27 PM
QUOTE(Highmac @ Oct 23 2008, 07:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Ain't gonna try to convince you - each to his own...
I'm just being a contrarian. So glad you didn't say "each to their own"
QUOTE(Paddy @ Oct 23 2008, 08:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
you might want to read this for a good explanation of the advantages and disadvantages of using text messaging:
http://communication.howstuffworks.com/sms1.htm
http://communication.howstuffworks.com/sms1.htm
Thanks! A good read!
QUOTE
1) It is more discreet than a phone conversation, making it the ideal form for communicating when you don't want to be overheard. 2)It is often less time-consuming to send a text message than to make a phone call or send an e-mail. 3) (it) doesn't require you to be at your computer like e-mail and instant messaging (IM) do -- 4) SMS is also a convenient way for deaf and hearing-impaired people to communicate. 5) (It) can be used to send a message to a large number of people at a time, 6) Because SMS doesn't overload the network as much as phone calls, it is frequently used by TV shows to let viewers vote on a poll topic or for a contestant.
1) Go somewhere else! Maybe a phone booth?
Or use e-mail.2) Ok, when I get that busy I'll try it!
3) No, but it requires you to have your cell phone, so you could just call the person.
4) Agreed, good point. My wife says that could be the clincher for me now!
5) So can e-mail
6) ...because we can. Got along fine without that ability for, what, 75 years? I only vote at the polling place.
QUOTE
Here are a few of the disadvantages of SMS:
You have to pay for it. Most wireless plans charge for a certain number of text messages a month. Some only charge for user-originated messages, while others charge for incoming messages as well. If you exceed your message allowance, you may be charged 10 cents per message, and those little charges can add up.
Speedy message delivery is not guaranteed. During periods of high traffic, it might be minutes or even hours before a message gets through.
You have to pay for it. Most wireless plans charge for a certain number of text messages a month. Some only charge for user-originated messages, while others charge for incoming messages as well. If you exceed your message allowance, you may be charged 10 cents per message, and those little charges can add up.
Speedy message delivery is not guaranteed. During periods of high traffic, it might be minutes or even hours before a message gets through.
Interesting. I know e-mail is delayed sometimes too. What about "Instant" Messages???
QUOTE(kbeartx @ Oct 23 2008, 10:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE(Gregg @ Oct 23 2008, 06:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
However, every text message, whether incoming* or outgoing (our sons get them, and one sends a few himself) adds 15 cents to the bill.
I read somewhere recently that this is only true in the good ol' USA - the rest of the world [or at least many other countries] do not get charged for incoming calls or texts...
I think I'll move to Australia.
QUOTE(Xairbusdriver @ Oct 23 2008, 07:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm still not convinced it's useful.
I'm about to do something unprecedented...
IAWXABD
Post by: krissel on October 24, 2008, 03:38:38 AM
...IAWG
Post by: Xairbusdriver on October 25, 2008, 02:01:43 PM
"Look at me! I'm so important, I need to talk to someone in the middle of lunch/dinner/this meeting/etc." Now, OTOH, it is a lot more convenient and 'private' when used in a classroom setting...
BTW, I noticed that we were instructed to turn our cell phones off when we voted (early) yesterday. 
Too late to get the name of that person you want to vote for, I guess! No "Shout Outs!"
Post by: Gregg on October 25, 2008, 03:08:06 PM
Like the guy in the commercial who picks up his phone to switch on camera mode to catch the, um, er... well look at the ladies who just walked past him. You know the one. His SO is sitting across the table from him and "texts him".
Wait a minute! She could just kick him under the table. It's quick, efficient, effective, and discreet... unless she gets him good and he yells.
Post by: tacit on October 26, 2008, 07:31:05 PM
Different communication techniques have different levels of priority and intrusiveness. At the least intrusive, most background side fo the scale, we have letter writing; a person does not (usually) compose a response to a letter instantly, but may wait hours, days, or even weeks to respond, when it's most convenient. Moving up from that, we have text messaging; a person may not compose a reply to a text message for minutes or hours. Then comes instant messaging, which is more intrusive nd closer to real-time than text messaging but less intrusive and less real-time than a phone call. Moving up from that, we have phone conversations, which almost demand full attention and must be responded to immediately; and then, up from that, we have face-to-face conversations, which are real-time, must be responded to instantly, and require physical presence of the person you're talking to.
Different modes of conversation have different uses and different requirements. I find texting very convenient as an unobtrusive, low-pressure way to keep in touch with all my sweeties, for example. It allows me to send out little "Hi, Im thinking about you!" pokes throughout the day, without requiring that they stop whatever it is they're doing to respond. Texting doesn't take the place of phone conversations; it adds to it, by providing a way to keep in touch in small ways all throughout the day.
Post by: Gregg on October 26, 2008, 08:47:25 PM
Another "unobtrusive, low-pressure" means of communication is e-mail. (In fact, e-mail is probably less intrusive.) The only advantage that I see texting has is that you can send and receive it from more places. It's a matter of convenience. But, we all remember when you had to use a land line to make a phone call. We got along just fine, and the phone company provided pay phones for when we were away from home or office.
I'm near a computer except when I'm in the car or shopping or at the car wash, etc. Thus, I can use e-mail for anything that I might text. Using e-mail allows me to compose real sentences, and communicate more than a text message when I need to. So, personally, I can't think of any reason I would want to use text messaging. It's a personal preference, of course. And, if it didn't cause my cell bill to increase with each use, I might be inclined to actually use texting once in awhile!
Post by: Xairbusdriver on October 27, 2008, 04:03:07 PM
QUOTE
phone conversations, which almost demand full attention and must be responded to immediately
NO, no! That can't be! Otherwise, how do all those people manage to drive around without hitting anything, mostly?Nor do I find it necessary to answer the phone when it is inconvenient and especially if I know who it is that is calling! Thank goodness for Caller ID!
Other than that, a good summary of different means for different ways to communicate!
BTW, Gregg, I think some might argue that those pay phones were simply "provided" out of the phone companies benevolence!
Post by: sandbox on October 28, 2008, 06:35:44 AM
Post by: Gregg on October 28, 2008, 06:37:29 AM
QUOTE(Xairbusdriver @ Oct 27 2008, 04:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Nor do I find it necessary to answer the phone when it is inconvenient and especially if I know who it is that is calling! Thank goodness for Caller ID!
Caller ID is another thing I find to be unnecessary. We don't have call waiting or voice mail either, but we do have an answering machine(AM). With all of the political "surveys", recorded messages, and fund raising going on right now, we let every call go to the AM even when we're home. If it's someone we know, we pick up the phone and interrupt the message they are leaving for us. The "caller ID" is when they say, "Hi, Gregg. This is...." The "live" callers we don't know usually don't leave a message, but the recorded messages play through. :four!: or is it :fore!:? for, 4...